META Case Study

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5
Vision and mission statement .................................................................................................... 6
Corporate Mission Statement ................................................................................................. 6
Corporate Vision Statement ................................................................................................... 6
Financials ............................................................................................................................... 6
From Facebook to Meta ............................................................................................................. 9
Top 5 companies owned by Meta ............................................................................................ 12
Instagram.............................................................................................................................. 12
WhatsApp ............................................................................................................................ 13
Oculus VR ............................................................................................................................ 13
Onavo ................................................................................................................................... 14
Beluga .................................................................................................................................. 14
Business model ........................................................................................................................ 16
Core Consumer Benefits .......................................................................................................... 18
Value proposition for marketers and businesses ...................................................................... 19
Algorithm ................................................................................................................................. 20
META's revenue model ........................................................................................................... 22
Promises from Facebook at launch .......................................................................................... 23
META’s strategy...................................................................................................................... 24
1
Risk factors .............................................................................................................................. 26
Privacy setting concerns .......................................................................................................... 28
SWOT Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 29
Strengths (Internal Strategic Factors) .................................................................................. 29
Weaknesses (Internal Strategic Factors) .............................................................................. 30
Opportunities (External Strategic Factors) .......................................................................... 30
Threats (External Strategic Factors) .................................................................................... 31
Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 32
Porter’s Five Forces Analysis of Meta Inc. ............................................................................. 33
Competitive Rivalry or Competition with Meta Inc. (Moderate Force) .............................. 33
Bargaining Power of Facebook’s Customers/Buyers (Strong Force) .................................. 34
Bargaining Power of Facebook’s Suppliers (Weak Force).................................................. 34
Threat of Substitutes or Substitution (Strong Force) ........................................................... 35
Threat of New Entrants or New Entry against Meta Inc. (Weak Force) ............................. 35
Recommendations: ............................................................................................................... 36
PESTLE Analysis of Meta ....................................................................................................... 38
Political Factors Affecting Facebook’s Business ................................................................ 38
Economic Factors Important to Meta Inc. ........................................................................... 39
Social/Sociocultural Factors Influencing Facebook’s Business Environment .................... 39
Technological Factors in Facebook’s Business ................................................................... 40
2
Ecological/Environmental Factors ....................................................................................... 41
Legal Factors ........................................................................................................................ 41
Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 42
Operations management of Meta ............................................................................................. 44
10 Decision Areas of OM .................................................................................................... 44
Productivity at Meta Inc....................................................................................................... 48
Meta Inc.’s Organizational Culture.......................................................................................... 49
Features ................................................................................................................................ 49
Advantages & Disadvantages .............................................................................................. 51
Meta Inc.’s Organizational Structure ....................................................................................... 53
Features ................................................................................................................................ 53
Advantages & Disadvantages .............................................................................................. 56
Generic Strategy & Intensive Growth Strategies ..................................................................... 57
Generic Strategy (Porter’s Model) ....................................................................................... 57
Intensive Growth Strategies ................................................................................................. 58
Marketing Mix (4Ps) Analysis ................................................................................................. 60
Products................................................................................................................................ 60
Place ..................................................................................................................................... 61
Promotion............................................................................................................................. 62
Prices .................................................................................................................................... 63
3
Corporate Social Responsibility & Stakeholder Analysis ....................................................... 64
CSR Initiatives ..................................................................................................................... 64
Meta Inc.’s CSR Performance ............................................................................................. 67
Financial statements ................................................................................................................. 67
Balance sheet ....................................................................................................................... 67
Income statement ................................................................................................................. 69
Cash flow statement ............................................................................................................. 71
Revenue streams .................................................................................................................. 74
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 75
4
Introduction
In the ever-evolving landscape of technology and digital innovation, the rebranding of Meta
from its previous incarnation as Facebook marks a significant turning point. This case study
delves into the depths of Meta's transformative journey a renaissance of sorts as it shapes its
future through a strategic rebranding initiative. Exploring the motives, strategies, and
implications of this transition provides a unique lens through which to comprehend the
dynamic interplay of branding, technology, and the METAVERSE. As we navigate through
the following sections, we will unravel how Meta's renaissance not only redefines its identity
but also charts a course for the digital future.
5
Vision and mission statement
Corporate Mission Statement
Meta’s (Facebook’s) corporate mission is “to give people the power to build community and
bring the world closer together.” This mission statement was implemented amid data privacy
and security issues when the business, operating as Meta Inc., transacted with Cambridge
Analytica. The previous corporate mission was “to give people the power to share and make
the world more open and connected.” The following points are in Meta Platforms Inc.’s current
corporate mission statement:
1. Give people the power

2. Build community
3. Bring the world closer together
Corporate Vision Statement
Meta’s (Facebook’s) corporate vision is “to bring the metaverse to life and help people connect,
find communities and grow businesses.” This corporate vision is a considerable change
compared to the company’s vision statement when it was still doing business as Facebook:
“People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what’s going on
in the world, and to share and express what matters to them.” The following are the main points
of Meta Platforms Inc.’s corporate vision statement:
1. Bring the metaverse to life

2. Help people connect and find communities
3. Help people grow businesses
Financials
Initial funding
Facebook was initially incorporated as a Florida LLC. For the first few months after its launch
in February 2004, the costs for the website operations for thefacebook.com were paid for by
Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin, who had taken equity stakes in the company. The
website also ran a few advertisements to meet its operating costs.
6
First angel investment
In the summer of 2004, venture capitalist Peter Thiel made a $500,001 angel investment in the
social network Facebook for 10.2% of the company and joined Facebook's board. This was the
first outside investment in Facebook.
Microsoft investment
On October 24, 2007, Microsoft announced that it had purchased a 1.6% share of Facebook
for $240 million, giving Facebook a total implied value of around $15 billion. However,
Microsoft bought preferred stock that carried special rights, such as "liquidation preferences"
that meant Microsoft would get paid before common stockholders if the company were sold.
Microsoft's purchase also included the right to place international ads on Facebook. In
November 2007, Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing invested $60 million in Facebook.
Initial public offering
Facebook filed for an initial public offering (IPO) on February 1, 2012. The preliminary
prospectus stated that the company was seeking to raise $5 billion. The document announced
that the company had 845 million active monthly users and its website featured 2.7 billion
daily likes and comments. After the IPO, Zuckerberg retains a 22% ownership share in
Facebook and owns 57% of the voting shares.
Underwriters valued the shares at $38 each, pricing the company at $104 billion, the largest
valuation to date for a newly public company. On May 16, one day before the IPO, Facebook
announced that it would sell 25% more shares than originally planned due to high demand. The
IPO raised $16 billion, making it the third largest in U.S. history (just ahead of AT&T
Wireless and behind only General Motors and Visa Inc.). The stock price left the company
with a higher market capitalization than all but a few U.S. corporations surpassing
heavyweights such as Amazon.com, McDonald's, Disney, and Kraft Foods and made
Zuckerberg's stock worth $19 billion. The New York Times stated that the offering overcame
questions about Facebook's difficulties in attracting advertisers to transform the company into
a "must-own stock". Jimmy Lee of JPMorgan Chase described it as "the next great blue-
chip". Writers at TechCrunch, on the other hand, expressed skepticism, stating, "That's a big
7
multiple to live up to, and [Facebook] will likely need to add bold new revenue streams to
justify the mammoth valuation".
Trading in the stock, which began on May 18, was delayed that day due to technical problems
with the NASDAQ exchange. The stock struggled to stay above the IPO price for most of the
day, forcing underwriters to buy back shares to support the price. At closing bell, shares were
valued at $38.23, only $0.23 above the IPO price and down $3.82 from the opening bell value.
The opening was widely described by the financial press as a disappointment. The stock
nonetheless set a new record for trading volume of an IPO. On May 25, 2012, the stock ended
its first full week of trading at $31.91, a 16.5% decline.
8
From Facebook to Meta
Why the Name Change Needed to Happen
Back on February 4, 2004, Facebook served only one principle: being an easier way for
Harvard students to connect.
9
Back then, Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg probably had no idea of what his social media
platform would turn out to be. Soon, thousands of people started signing up on the platform.
Word started getting around, and the rest is history.
Almost 2 decades have passed since then. And, although both Facebook and Mark have gone
through their fair share of ups and downs, their biggest challenge is probably happening as we
speak.
In October 2021, Mark Zuckerberg announced that his company would leave Facebook’s name
behind. And, instead, it will focus on the future. The future, in this case, is called ‘Meta’.
But, why exactly did this name change need to happen? Well, it all boils down to 2 simple
reasons: adapting and evolving. Let’s take a closer look at both of them:
Adapting
Every single brand, be it big or small, needs to adapt to what’s currently popular. And, this is
exactly what Facebook is doing.
Now, some people might argue that Facebook made $29 billion in profit in 2020. Why would
a brand that has generated this much success ever need to change something about itself?
The reason for that is simple. It’s so it can continue to generate success. Sure, Facebook might
have made $29 billion in profit in the year 2020. However, that doesn’t mean that that success
wouldn’t decrease the next year or the one after.
In the branding world, people that are in the same position as Mark Zuckerberg always have
to look ahead. They play the long game, not only the one they currently have on their hands.
Zuckerberg has stated that “the METAVERSE is the next frontier in connecting people, just
like social networking was when we got started.”
Not only does Mark Zuckerberg wants to adapt to what is currently happening around the
world. But, he also wants to be one step ahead of what will likely happen in the near future.
Evolving
The METAVERSE didn’t just change a company’s name, logo, and colors, but the way that
most people view it as well.
10
For years and years, people have dreamt of living in a futuristic world, one where AI,
holograms, flying cars, or anything else your mind can think of was real. So basically, a world
where an AI system like the one in “Ready Player One” was real.
Well, that’s exactly what the METAVERSE promises to achieve. Experiencing the
METAVERSE can quite literally be a transformative experience.
And, while other brands have tried to go this far into the future, Facebook is the only one that
has made it its most vital purpose.
However, saying and trying to achieve something is not the same as actually achieving it.
As earlier, both Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook have gone through a lot of ups and downs.
Could the METAVERSE end up being another up, or a down?
Well, there’s no way of actually knowing that answer. Sure, Facebook has a ton of resources
that can take us into the METAVERSE.
But, will that ever happen? We’ll just have to wait and see.
11
Top 5 companies owned by Meta
Meta has expanded far beyond its original social networking platform since its founding 16
years ago. Its products also include messenger services, photo and video sharing, augmented
reality, and many other apps and services. Acquisitions have been key to growing these
businesses and Meta's revenue in general. Meta's strategy has been to buy potential rivals before
they can get too big. In the process, the company sometimes has paid exceptionally high prices
for some deals. The company has also drawn attention from the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) due to potential anticompetitive practices, with the FTC recently demanding data on
unreported purchases from Meta as well as other big tech companies.
Below, we look in more detail at Meta's 5 biggest acquisitions. The company does not provide
a breakdown of how much profit or revenue each acquisition currently contributes to Meta.
Instagram
Type of Business: Photo and video-sharing app
Acquisition Cost: $1.0 billion
Acquisition Date: April 9, 2012
Instagram is a photo and video-sharing social networking platform that was launched in 2010.
Through the Instagram app, users can upload, edit, and tag photos and videos. The company
remained independent up until it was acquired by Meta for $1.0 billion in 2012. While Meta
bought Instagram as the photo-sharing company was garnering significant attention from
venture capital firms and other investors. Some estimates indicate that Instagram generates
more advertising revenue than its parent company.
When it acquired Instagram, Meta opted to build and grow the Instagram app independently
from Meta's main Facebook platform; Instagram remains a separate platform to this day. The
price that Meta paid for Instagram, which at that time was generating no revenue, reflects
Meta's willingness to pay a premium for young companies.
12
WhatsApp
Type of Business: Mobile messenger service
Acquisition Date: February 19, 2014
WhatsApp is a messenger and calling service available to users throughout the world. The
platform was launched in 2009 as a low-cost alternative to standard text messaging services.
Throughout much of its history, WhatsApp has allowed users to send messages and make calls
directly to other users for no cost, regardless of location. Users can also send photos, videos,
and documents over the platform. Meta bought WhatsApp at a time when the smaller company
boasted more than 400 million active monthly users, making it a fast-growing potential rival to
the Facebook network platform.
When Meta purchased WhatsApp, it was an independent company that had recently been
valued at $1.5 billion. Although it is unclear exactly how much revenue WhatsApp
generates, some estimates are that WhatsApp revenue will be as high as $5 billion by 2020.
Oculus VR
Type of Business: virtual reality Technology Company
Acquisition Date: March 25, 2014
Just weeks after announcing its acquisition of WhatsApp, Meta followed up by buying virtual
reality hardware and software company Oculus VR. This company was founded in 2012 and
is best known for its Oculus Rift product, a virtual reality headset that was designed for video
gaming. Since Facebook's purchase of Oculus VR in 2014, the subsidiary has made multiple
acquisitions of its own. Perhaps the most prominent was the 2015 purchase of Surreal Vision,
a company specializing in 3D scene mapping reconstruction.
13
At the time that Meta acquired Oculus VR, the company had only produced a development
prototype of what would become its popular headset product. Meta's purchase of Oculus VR
gave it an instant presence in the virtual reality market at a time when developers were
showing growing interest in VR.
Onavo
Type of Business: Mobile web analytics
Acquisition Cost: $100–200 million (estimated)
Acquisition Date: October 2013
Founded in 2010, Israeli company Onavo performs web analytics on other mobile apps to
determine customer usage. Meta acquired Onavo in October 2013 for an undisclosed amount
that some analysts estimated to be between $100 million and $200 million. At the time of the
acquisition, Onavo was an independent company. Although Onavo is not one of Meta's largest
acquisitions, Onavo's technology may have allowed Meta to make crucial early determinations
about other companies and apps to acquire. Onavo has occasionally been classified as
spyware, forcing Meta to pull Onavo from both the iOS and Android app stores in the face of
criticism.
Beluga
Type of Business: Messaging service
Acquisition Cost: Undisclosed
Acquisition Date: March 2, 2011
Messaging app service Beluga, founded in 2010, was acquired by Meta a year later. Meta
bought Beluga in the midst of the startup's fundraising process for an undisclosed sum. In
buying Beluga, Facebook acquired the technology that eventually became the social media
14
company's highly successful Messenger platform. In the process, Meta again expanded its
offerings and eliminated a potential rival.
15
Business model
You use Facebook, but have you ever wondered about its business model and how it has
evolved? In my E-business and E-commerce Management book we have reviewed the
development of Facebook for over six years now. I think it's still a great case study for both
students and professionals to learn from, since it shows many of the success factors needed for
a new start-up, including the risks of alienating users when their privacy needs are not listened
to.
It’s incredible that Facebook now has more than a billion monthly active users worldwide, yet
has fewer than 5,000 employees.
In this case study which we aim to keep up-to-date between the new editions of my books, I
have structured the review of Facebook strategy using some of the customer-related aspects of
the Business Model Canvas.
Facebook's value proposition
In 2013, the Facebook mission is simply to 'make the world more open and connected'.
Previously, it described itself as:
“A social utility that helps people communicate more efficiently with their friends, family and
coworkers. The company develops technologies that facilitate the sharing of information
through the social graph, the digital mapping of people’s real-world social connections.
Anyone can sign up for Facebook and interact with the people they know in a trusted
environment”.
You almost certainly know the story behind how the Facebook value proposition developed
from watching the 2010 film The Social Network? It describes how Facebook was founded
while Mark Zuckerberg was a student at Harvard University - initially for limited Harvard
student membership. The initial viral effect of the software was indicated since more than half
of the undergraduate population at Harvard registered on the service within the first month!
Zuckerberg used open-source software PHP and the MySQL database to create the original
'The Facebook.com' site and these technologies are still in use today.
16
The film also describes the long-running dispute on the ownership of Facebook since another
Harvard-originated social networking site ‘Harvard Connection’, which later changed its name
to ConnectU, alleged in September 2004 that Zuckerberg had used their source code to develop
Facebook when they originally contracted him to help in building their site.
When Facebook first launched in February 2004, there were just three things that users could
do on the site which are still core to the functionality of the site.
1. Users could create a profile with their picture and information.
2. View other people’s profiles.
3. Add people as friends.
17
Core Consumer Benefits
The latest Facebook SEC update explains these core consumer benefits defined by the
company:
Connect and Share with your friends.
Staying connected is the core feature as we would expect, but note the more emotional
underpinnings of the other elements of the value proposition.
Discover and Learn.
Facebook references public figures and organizations that interest them available through
Facebook company pages.
Express yourself.
A fundamental need and Facebook does this through its key features which it describes as the
Timeline, News Feed, Photos and Videos and messaging through Email, Chat and Text.
Stay connected everywhere.
Referencing the importance of mobile use and use on other sites to Facebook’s users and
business model. People can access Facebook through the website, mobile sites, smartphone
apps, and featured phone products.
18
Value proposition for marketers and businesses
Facebook works hard to monetize its audience particularly since it held its initial public
offering (IPO) on May 18, 2012. This was the biggest IPO for an Internet company, with a
peak market capitalization of over $104 billion. Facebook describes its offer to businesses as...
'Marketers can engage with more than one billion monthly active users on Facebook or subsets
of our users based on information people have chosen to share with us such as their age,
location, gender, or interests. We offer marketers a unique combination of reach, relevance,
social context, and engagement to enhance the value of their ads'.
Commercial companies or Not-For-Profit organizations can also create their own Facebook
Pages for their company (currently free). Facebook users can then express their support by
adding themselves as a fan, writing on the company Wall, uploading photos, and joining other
fans in discussion groups. When users become fans, they can optionally agree to be kept up to
date about developments which then appear in their news feeds.
19
Algorithm
To encourage companies to advertise, Facebook uses an algorithm known
as “EdgeRank” which determines the percentage of company status updates appear in a user’s
newsfeed.
Marketers need to work hard to maintain relevance of their posts using the techniques
described by Marie Page in her explanation of “EdgeRank”.
What is the Facebook Algorithm?
The Facebook algorithm is a set of rules that decides what posts people see in their Feeds.
Essentially, it decides which content is most relevant to show to each user based on several
factors. Each user’s Feed will look very different since it’s personalized just for them.
The Facebook algorithm has gone through many updates and improvements over the years.
One of the most recent updates focused on assessing the credibility of news articles. The goal
of this update was to curb misinformation by promoting reliable and high-quality news sources.
How the Facebook algorithm works
While the earliest algorithm prioritized posts that got the most Likes, the algorithm we see
today is a lot more sophisticated. Specifically, it considers four factors to decide which posts
to show to which user.
1. Inventory
First, Facebook takes inventory of all the content that could show up on your Feed. This
includes posts coming from people you’re friends with. It also includes content from the Pages
you follow and the groups you’ve joined.
2. Signals
The algorithm then assesses the relevance of each piece of content based on thousands of
signals. This includes signals such as who posted it and how often you interact with them. It
also looks at when they published the post and what time it is for you.
20
Facebook also considers signals such as the type of content and how you’ve interacted with
similar posts. In other words, it tries to assess relevance by understanding the nature of the
content and your behavior.
3. Predictions
Next, it uses the signals above to make predictions about what you want to see. The algorithm
will analyze past behavior to try and understand how likely you are to engage with a piece of
content.
Let’s say you regularly interact with a certain friend’s post. The Facebook algorithm will take
that as a sign that you like seeing content coming from that friend.
Similarly, let’s say you regularly watch and engage with videos from a Page about eco-friendly
living. It will understand that you like to watch videos from that Page and you’re interested in
this topic.
4. Relevancy scoring
Finally, the algorithm will score each content depending on how relevant it is to you. The
higher the score is, the more likely it is to show up in your Feed.
21
META's revenue model
Meta Platforms (META), the company that owns Facebook, primarily makes money by selling
advertising space on its various social media platforms. Those platforms include websites and
mobile applications that give users the ability to connect and communicate with family and
friends. The company’s sites and apps include social networking site Facebook, photo- and
video-sharing app INSTAGRAM, and messaging apps Messenger and What’sApp.
Meta also provides an ecosystem that allows users to connect through its Oculus virtual reality
products. The company is starting to put increased focus on its augmented- and virtual reality
products and services as part of its plan to build out the metaverse.1
Meta competes with other companies that sell advertising to marketers, as well as companies
that provide platforms for communicating and sharing content among users’ various social
networks. Major competitors include Apple (AAPL), Alphabet (GOOGL) Google and
YouTube, Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME), Amazon (AMZN), and X (formerly
Twitter).
22
Promises from Facebook at launch
At the time of the launch of ads, the Facebook blog made these comments, which indicates the
delicate balance between advertising revenue and user experience.
What’s not changing?
1. Facebook will always stay clutter-free and clean.

2. Facebook will never sell any of your information.
3. You will always have control over your information and your Facebook experience.
4. You will not see any more ads than you did before this.
And what is changing?
1. You now have a way to connect with products, businesses, bands, celebrities and more
on Facebook.
2. Ads should be getting more relevant and more meaningful to you.
23
META’s strategy
1. Expand global community. Facebook names specific 'relatively less-penetrated, large
markets' such as Brazil, India, Mexico and Japan.
2. Develop social products
To provide the most compelling user experience. As with many SEC filings of successful
Internet businesses there is a clear commitment to user experience.
3. Mobile Products.
Facebook is seeking to make these more engaging and more easily available. By the end of
2012 Facebook ad more than 680 million average monthly users of mobile services. The
acquisition of photo sharing app INSTAGRAM in August 2012 was part of this strategy.
4. Facebook Platform.
Facebook notes the importance of developing an open system through apps and websites built
by Developers using the Facebook Platform, including API (Application Programming
Interfaces) and Social Plugins (for example, Like and Share buttons) to help integration with
other services such as websites. The Facebook Platform was introduced in 2007 and by January
2008, over 18,000 applications had been built on Facebook Platform with 140 new applications
added per day. More than 95% of Facebook members have used at least one application built
on Facebook Platform. Facebook Platform for mobile applications was launched in October
2007, although many Facebook users already interacted with their friends through mobile
phones.
5. Improve ad products. With the IPO, this is a vital aim for Facebook but it has to be balanced
against the other elements of the strategy.
6. Build a scalable infrastructure. Facebook believes its investment in software and hardware
infrastructure has enabled them to provide a “unique, personalized experience” to each of their
users around the world. Facebook explains its technology investments as focusing on analytics
and development in areas including content optimization and delivery, graph query, media
storage and serving, large-scale data management, and software performance.
7. Facebook’s competitors
24
Curious to think of a company as large as Facebook having competitors, it has new global
rivals and local rivals. Facebook mentions Google+, which Google has integrated with some
of its products, including search and Android, as well as other, largely regional, social networks
that have strong positions in particular countries, such as Mixi in Japan and vKontakte and
Odnoklassniki in Russia.
It also describes companies that offer microblogging (Twitter), Developers of platforms such
as Apple iOS and Google Android and Games Developers as key competitors.
It has taken the decision not to create a competing mobile platforms, instead in 2013 launching
“Facebook Home on Android” to increase usage of Facebook on these devices.
25
Risk factors
Today Facebook states that 'Trust is a cornerstone of our business' and they now dedicate
significant resources to the goal of building user trust through developing and implementing
programs designed to protect user privacy, promote a safe environment, and assure the security
of user data.
Facebook has to some extent learned this lesson from early mistakes, with incidents
including:
Initial concerns about privacy of member data – 14 December 2005. Two MIT students
downloaded over 70,000 Facebook profiles from four schools (MIT, NYU, the University of
Oklahoma, and Harvard) using an automated script, as part of a research project on Facebook
privacy.
New feed functionality launched – September 2006. New information feeds were launched
in mid-2006 which show the challenges of balancing the benefit of new functionality against
disrupting existing user habits. Writing in the Facebook blog in September 2006, Mark
Zuckerberg said, ' We’ve been getting a lot of feedback about Mini-Feed and News Feed. We
think they are great products, but we know that many of you are not immediate fans, and have
found them overwhelming and cluttered. Other people are concerned that non-friends can see
too much about them. We are listening to all your suggestions about how to improve the
product.
Later, in an open letter on the blog dated 8 September 2006, Zuckerberg said, ' We really
messed this one up. When we launched News Feed and Mini-Feed, we were trying to provide
you with a stream of information about your social world. Instead, we did a bad job of
explaining what the new features were and an even worse job of giving you control of them.
I’d like to try to correct those errors now'.
Privacy Concerns sparked by Beacon Technology (November 2007)
Facebook received a lot of negative publicity on its new advertising format related to
the “Beacon tracking system”.
How did Mark Zuckerberg respond in his blog? (5 December 2007).
26
About a month ago, we released a new feature called Beacon to try to help people share
information with their friends about things they do on the web. We’ve made a lot of mistakes
building this feature, but we’ve made even more with how we’ve handled them. We simply
did a bad job with this release, and I apologize for it. While I am disappointed with our
mistakes, we appreciate all the feedback we have received from our users. I’d like to discuss
what we have learned and how we have improved Beacon'.
'We were excited about Beacon because we believe a lot of information people want to share
isn’t on Facebook, and if we found the right balance, Beacon would give people an easy and
controlled way to share more of that information with their friends'.
27
Privacy setting concerns
In December 2009, Facebook implemented new privacy settings. This meant some
information, including ‘lists of friends’, was ‘publicly available’, when it was previously
possible to restricted.
Photos and some personal information were also public unless users were sufficiently
knowledgeable and active to limit access. Privacy campaigners including the Electronic
Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union criticized the changes. In May 201,
further changes were made to give users greater control and simplify the settings.
Facebook lists some of its other key risk factors as:
1. Users increasingly engage with other products or activities; failure to introduce new
and improved products.
2. Introduce new products or services not liked; users feel that their Facebook experience
is diminished as a result of the decisions made with respect to the frequency, prominence, and
size of ads that are displayed.
3. Unable to continue to develop engaging products for mobile devices, that work with a
variety of mobile operating systems and networks, and that achieve a high level of market
acceptance.
4. Unable to manage and priorities information to ensure users are presented with content
that is interesting, useful, and relevant to them.
5. Users adopt new technologies where Facebook may not be featured or otherwise
available.
28
SWOT Analysis
Strengths (Internal Strategic Factors)
This part of the SWOT analysis identifies the business capabilities, resources, and competitive
advantages that support the growth and success of the information technology corporation. The
company’s strengths come from its services and brands, such as Facebook and Instagram. The
following internal factors are among Meta’s primary strengths:
1. Some of the world’s strongest information technology and online service brands.
2. Massive global user base with corresponding network effect.
3. An expanding ecosystem of information technology products.
The Facebook and Instagram brands are among the most popular in the world. Facebook is
now just one of the services and brands of Meta Platforms after the company’s reorganization
and rebranding in 2021. However, Meta’s efforts in developing the metaverse are largely
dependent on Facebook and Instagram social media users. Thus, in this SWOT analysis, these
brands are a major strength supporting the growth of Meta Platforms. In relation, the social
network, through Facebook’s original business, has a massive consumer base. In this SWOT
analysis of Meta Platforms, such an internal strategic factor strengthens the company through
the network effect. As new users join and use Facebook and the metaverse, the company’s
services become more attractive to even more users. Considering Facebook’s dominance in
online social networking, Meta’s competitive advantage is maintained through its massive user
base. In addition, this SWOT analysis considers how the company’s shift to the metaverse
leads to the strength of having an ecosystem of products and users. Meta’s various products,
including social media services and virtual reality consumer electronics, complement each
other. For instance, Oculus headsets support Meta’s strategic objective of growing its
metaverse presence. Similarly, the popularity of services like WhatsApp and Messenger
encourages users to consider buying Oculus headsets for experiencing the metaverse. The
organizational structure or corporate structure of Meta Platforms (Facebook) matches business
organizational needs in order to maintain the ecosystem-based strength noted in this SWOT
analysis.
29
Weaknesses (Internal Strategic Factors)
Meta’s weaknesses create obstacles or difficulties in growing the business. In this SWOT
analysis, such internal factors can prevent the social networking and digital advertising
company from increasing its revenues and profits. The following are among Meta’s major
weaknesses:
1. Low diversification, with primary dependence on social networking.

2. High vulnerability to online advertising trends.
3. Imitable business model and services.
Meta mainly relies on revenues through its social media, social networking, and instant
messaging services. Advertising revenues on Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger constitute
the bulk of the company’s earnings. In this SWOT analysis, the dependence on advertising on
social media is a weakness that makes Meta Platforms vulnerable to sociocultural trends
affecting social media usage. Similarly, this SWOT analysis identifies the company’s
vulnerability to downtrends in digital ad spending. For example, regional or global crises can
reduce advertising budgets and, consequently, decrease ad spending on social networking
platforms, like Facebook. The imitable nature of Meta’s business model and services is another
internal strategic factor that is a weakness significant to this SWOT analysis. Although the
company is among the world’s most popular, other large businesses with technological
capability can create similar platforms to compete with Meta’s services and brands, such as
instant messaging services, and e-commerce or social commerce.
Opportunities (External Strategic Factors)
In this part of the SWOT analysis, the external factors that create conditions for growth and
success are considered in examining the industry and market environment of the social media
and metaverse business. The following external strategic factors are among Meta’s main
opportunities:
1. Business diversification to limit reliance on digital advertising

2. Market penetration and development to increase revenues
3. New partnerships and alliances with third parties to support stronger presence in the
metaverse.
30
Business diversification can improve Meta Platforms. This opportunity addresses the issues of
primary dependence on social networking, and vulnerability to online advertising trends, which
are weaknesses identified in this SWOT analysis. For example, additional businesses can
complement the company’s existing operations, such as Facebook, Oculus VR, Instagram, and
others. In relation, Meta has the opportunity to increase revenues through market penetration
and market development. In this SWOT analysis, such an external factor can lead to business
expansion, which supports brand popularity and corporate competitiveness. Meta Platforms
Inc. can fine-tune its marketing mix or 4P, including Facebook’s marketing mix, to support
market penetration and development. Furthermore, new partnerships and alliances are an
opportunity relevant to this SWOT analysis of Meta Platforms Inc. Through this opportunity,
the company can develop mutually beneficial agreements with other organizations, to optimize
the metaverse. Such agreements can focus on marketing strategies, information technology
capabilities, and other aspects. Also, mutually beneficial partnerships and alliances with
educational institutions, non-profit organizations, and foundations can improve Meta’s
(Facebook’s) stakeholder management, and corporate social responsibility and corporate
citizenship initiatives. Such an improvement can contribute to the brand strength identified in
this SWOT analysis of the social media corporation.
Threats (External Strategic Factors)
The threats to Meta Platforms, Inc. can impede growth and decrease business profitability. In
the SWOT analysis model, these external factors come from a variety of sources, including
other social media companies and information technology platforms. The following are the
major threats to Meta:
1. Competition, especially in the online advertising space

2. Sociocultural trends that reduce Facebook usage
3. Cybercrime
This SWOT analysis highlights competition as the main threat, especially when considering
Meta’s operations in e-commerce (social commerce), social media and social networking
(Facebook, Instagram), instant messaging (Messenger, WhatsApp), digital advertising,
consumer electronics (Oculus VR), and video content production and distribution. The
company competes with eBay’s marketplace; Microsoft’s Skype, LinkedIn, and Ads; Google’s
31
digital ad network, social media, and streaming services (including YouTube); SNAPCHAT’S,
TikTok’s, Twitter’s, Amazon’s, and Walmart’s digital advertising businesses;
and Disney’s, Netflix’s, and Sony’s video content production and distribution.
Even Apple’s digital advertising service within its closed ecosystem is a Meta competitor for
advertising budgets. These competitors impose a strong force against Meta Platforms and its
products, making competition the most significant threat relevant to this SWOT analysis.
Recommendations
As Meta evolves and focuses on developing the metaverse, the company needs to address some
of the major issues identified in this SWOT analysis of the business and its environment. The
internal analysis shows the negative effects of high dependence on social networking and
advertising revenues, especially on Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger. The external
analysis within this SWOT analysis of Meta underscores competition, cybercrime, and the
aging population of Facebook users, as young people increasingly choose alternative or
competing services.
To strengthen the business against the issues and challenges shown in this SWOT analysis,
Meta Platforms Inc. can diversify to create new revenue channels other than social media
advertising. The company can also implement market penetration and market development to
increase its market share, especially in areas or market segments that have a relatively low rate
of adoption of its social networking services, like Facebook. Furthermore, alliances and
partnerships with other organizations can enhance Meta’s business performance. These
recommendations focus on strengthening the metaverse and digital advertising business, to
make the company less vulnerable to the threats outlined in this SWOT analysis. Improvements
to Meta’s (Facebook’s) organizational culture or corporate culture can also support innovation,
to attract younger users to the company’s services.
32
Porter’s Five Forces Analysis of Meta Inc.
Facebook’s market position as one of the world’s leading online social media businesses
provides a variety of benefits. However, this Five Forces analysis shows that the company
must keep satisfying customers to reduce the potential negative effects of competition and
substitution against its social networking website, mobile apps, and related offerings. The
following are the strengths or intensities of the Five Forces that influence Meta Inc.’s business:
1. Competitive rivalry or competition (moderate force)

2. Bargaining power of buyers or customers (strong force)
3. Bargaining power of suppliers (weak force)
4. Threat of substitutes or substitution (strong force)
5. Threat of new entrants or new entry (weak force)
Competitive Rivalry or Competition with Meta Inc. (Moderate Force)
Even with its leading social media market position, Meta Inc. experiences the significant
impact of competition. This element of Porter’s Five Forces Analysis model determines how
competitors affect the company’s industry environment. The following external factors lead to
the moderate force of competitive rivalry against the company:
1. Small number of firms (weak force)

2. Moderate variety of firms (moderate force)
3. Low switching costs (strong force)
There are only a small number of companies that offer online display advertising services
similar to that of Meta Inc. For example, YouTube LLC (a subsidiary of Google LLC) has a
social media website that offers targeted online advertising service. In the context of this Five
Forces analysis, the small number of competing firms exerts a weak force against Facebook.
However, the variety of these firms helps attract advertisers, thereby imposing a moderate force
in the industry environment. In addition, the low switching costs (low difficulty of transferring
from one provider to another) make it easier for advertisers to shift away from the company
toward competitors. These external factors create the moderate force of competition. Based on
this element of the Five Forces analysis, competitive rivalry is a major consideration in Meta
Inc.’s management and strategic formulation.
33
Bargaining Power of Facebook’s Customers/Buyers (Strong Force)
Customers impose pressure on Meta Inc. in terms of what they want from the company. The
impact of consumers or buyers on the online display advertising industry environment is
examined in this element of Porter’s Five Forces Analysis model. The following external
factors lead to the strong force of customers’ bargaining power on the company’s social
network and related services:
1. High substitute availability (strong force)

3. High demand from buyers (weak force)
Facebook provides social media services to its members/users. However, advertisers are the
company’s primary source of revenues. These advertisers have the option to use substitutes,
which are highly available. For example, instead of advertising on Facebook, customers could
advertise on television, radio and print media, all of which are widely available and effective
in reaching target audiences. In this Five Forces analysis, such a condition exerts a strong force
against the business, despite the social network’s strong popularity (see SWOT analysis of
Meta Inc.). In addition, low switching costs are an external factor that makes it easy for
customers to shift away from the company’s social networking website, mobile apps, and
advertising services. This factor exerts a strong force against the business. The high demand
for online advertising buffers the potential shift of advertisers and slightly weakens the
bargaining power of customers. This element of the Five Forces analysis shows that Meta Inc.
must prioritize its customers to ensure competitive advantage.
Bargaining Power of Facebook’s Suppliers (Weak Force)
Suppliers are among the factors that influence Meta Inc.’s social network and display
advertising services. This element of the Five Forces analysis shows how suppliers affect firms
and the industry environment. The following external factors lead to the weak bargaining
power of suppliers on Meta Inc.:
1. Moderate size of individual suppliers (moderate force)

2. Large population of suppliers (weak force)
3. High overall supply (weak force)
34
Examples of Facebook’s supply needs include servers and related computing and network
technology/equipment, as well as office supplies. Some suppliers are large firms that exert a
moderate force on the company. However, these supplies are available from many
manufacturers. In this Five Forces analysis, the large supplier population is an external factor
that exerts a weak force on Meta Inc. In relation, the high overall supply minimizes the
influence of individual suppliers on the company. Based on these external factors in the Five
Forces analysis, suppliers are a minimal issue in the firm’s social media and online advertising
industry environment. However, the company can improve its management of supplier
relationships through suitable strategies for the supply chain. These strategies can contribute
to Facebook’s corporate social responsibility fulfillment involving suppliers, among other
stakeholders.
Threat of Substitutes or Substitution (Strong Force)
Substitutes could potentially reduce Facebook’s business performance and create challenges
in the social media firm’s industry environment. The impact of substitution is considered in
this element of the Five Forces analysis. The most notable external factors that create the strong
threat of substitutes against Meta Inc. are as follows:

2. High substitute availability (strong force)
3. Moderate cost of substitutes (moderate force)
It is easy for advertisers to pay for substitutes, such as television, radio and print advertising,
instead of paying for Facebook’s social media advertising. In the Porter’s Five Forces Analysis
framework, this condition exerts a strong force on the company. In relation, the high
availability of such substitutes strongly affects the industry environment. Nonetheless, many
of these substitutes, especially television advertising, are more expensive than Facebook’s
advertising services. Such cost condition exerts a moderate force on the company. This element
of the Five Forces analysis shows that the threat of substitution is one of the major issues facing
strategic management at Meta Inc.
Threat of New Entrants or New Entry against Meta Inc. (Weak Force)
The social media giant faces the negative effects of new entrants in the industry environment.
This element of the Five Forces analysis covers the impact of new firms on the business. In
35
this external analysis case of Meta Inc. and its social network and related products, the
following external factors lead to the weak threat of new entry:

2. High cost of brand development (weak force)
3. High cost of customer loyalty (weak force)
New entrants exert a strong force against Facebook, due to the low switching costs (low
difficulty) of advertisers in moving from one service provider to another. However, this Five
Forces analysis also shows that it is difficult to develop a popular and reliable social media
brand similar to Facebook’s. It is also difficult to build the loyalty of advertisers and
users/members. This external factor weakens the threat of new entry against the company.
Based on this element of the Five Forces analysis, new entrants are a minimal issue in
Facebook’s strategic formulation processes.
Recommendations:
Based on this Five Forces analysis (Porter’s model), Meta Inc. retains its industry position
partly due to new entrants’ and suppliers’ weaknesses. Such weaknesses impose minimal
barriers to the social media company. However, customers significantly influence the business
in terms of their ability to transfer to other companies that offer social media services (for
members/users) and online advertising services (for advertisers). In relation, substitutes have
the potential to eat away from the firm’s market share. Thus, the external factors in this Five
Forces analysis highlight the need for strategies and management approaches that continually
satisfy customers of Facebook’s social networking website and mobile apps. This
recommendation can help retain clients and market share. In addition, it is recommended that
the company implement strategies that keep its display advertising services more attractive
than those of substitutes. This move should minimize the negative influence of substitution in
the industry environment. Also, improvements in Facebook’s operations management
strategy can enhance business efficiency in addressing competitive challenges.
36
37
PESTLE Analysis of Meta
Meta Inc. evolves to address the issues identified in this PESTEL/PESTLE analysis of the
social media business. The PESTLE Analysis model presents an external analysis of the most
important factors in the company’s remote or macro-environment. As one of the top players in
the international social media market, the corporation has the capabilities to maintain such
market position through popularity, brand development, and research and development
investment. However, this PESTLE analysis of Facebook indicates the need for adjustments
in strategies to ensure that its social networking website, mobile apps, and display advertising
services remain attractive in the face of significant competition from other firms, such as
Twitter Inc., Snap Inc. (Snapchat), and Google’s YouTube. Considering the industry landscape
and level of competition determined in the Porter’s Five Forces analysis of Meta Inc., it is
essential to implement strategies that strengthen the company’s competitive advantages to
support continued growth worldwide.
Political Factors Affecting Facebook’s Business
Facebook’s business is linked to the political landscape. In this element of the

PESTEL/PESTLE Analysis, the effects of governments as external factors in the company’s
remote or macro-environment are determined. Political movements have the power to shape
the progress of businesses and entire industries. The following are the major political factors
influencing Meta Inc.:
1. Political stability in developed countries (opportunity)

2. Popular governmental support for globalization (opportunity)
3. Political barriers in the Chinese market (threat)
4. Political action on online data (threat)
The political stability of developed countries presents opportunities for Meta Inc. to continue
diversifying its business in these markets. Also, the company has the opportunity to expand its
social media and display advertising services worldwide, based on governmental support for
globalization. However, Facebook could suffer from political barriers in China. The
company’s potential global growth is limited because of Chinese censorship. In addition,
regarding data privacy and security issues involving organizations like Cambridge Analytica,
38
governments are increasingly working to limit online data collection, sharing, and processing.
This external factor can slow down the company’s growth. Based on this element of the
PESTEL/PESTLE analysis of Meta Inc., the company must enhance data privacy and security,
and continue negotiating with the Chinese government to open up the display advertising
market in the country.
Economic Factors Important to Meta Inc.
Economic conditions shape Meta Inc.’s business growth. This element of the
PESTEL/PESTLE Analysis considers the impact of economic trends and conditions on the
firm’s remote or macro-environment. The economic external factors that affect the company
are as follows:
1. Increasing stability of developing countries (opportunity)

2. Rapid economic growth of developing countries (opportunity)
3. Increasing disposable incomes (opportunity)
Meta Inc. has the opportunity to increase its market penetration efforts in developing countries
with increasing economic stability. In relation, the rapid economic growth of these countries
leads to an improvement of infrastructure, including telecommunications infrastructure. In this
PESTEL/PESTLE analysis, such an external factor supports an expansion of access to
Facebook’s social network. Moreover, the increasing disposable incomes in developing
countries improve users’ capacity to purchase devices to access the company’s services,
thereby also contributing to business expansion. Such conditions support Facebook’s generic
competitive strategy and intensive growth strategies. This element of the PESTEL/PESTLE
Analysis indicates that Meta Inc. has major opportunities to expand its multinational
operations, especially through market penetration.
Social/Sociocultural Factors Influencing Facebook’s Business Environment
Facebook’s popularity and global reach is under the influence of social conditions. The impact
of sociocultural trends and changes on the company’s remote or macro-environment is
determined in this element of the PESTEL/PESTLE Analysis. The following sociocultural
external factors are most notable in the case of Meta Inc.:
39
1. Increasing preference for high quality services (opportunity)
2. Increasing online buying (opportunity)
3. Increasing support for corporate social responsibility (opportunity)
With increasing financial capacity and improving living conditions, people are increasingly
emphasizing high quality in the services that they use. In the context of this PESTEL/PESTLE
analysis, such a social condition presents an opportunity for Meta Inc. to improve its service
quality standards to satisfy and retain clients who pay for the company’s display advertising
services. In addition, increasing online buying worldwide creates opportunities for Facebook
to develop additional services to profit from retail sales generated through its social networking
website and related mobile apps. For example, the company can offer better marketplaces to
address this trend. The company also has the opportunity to enhance its corporate social
responsibility programs as a way of satisfying the corresponding expectations of users. Based
on the external factors in this element of the PESTEL/PESTLE analysis of Meta Inc., there are
major opportunities to improve the company’s services to optimize competitive advantage.
Technological Factors in Facebook’s Business
Technologies impact Meta Inc., considering that it is a business founded on online

technologies. This element of the PESTEL/PESTLE Analysis identifies the main technological
influences on the firm’s remote or macro-environment. The following technological external
factors affect Meta Inc.:
1. Increasing use of mobile devices (opportunity)

2. Increasing number of online social media companies (threat)
3. Diversification of online retail firms (threat)
Facebook has the opportunity to improve user experience involving its mobile apps. This
opportunity is based on the trend of increasing mobile device usage worldwide. However, this
PESTEL/PESTLE analysis points to the threat of increasing competition, as more online social
networks attempt to attract users away from the company’s social media services. This
technological trend also leads to market saturation, which is a threat noted in the SWOT
analysis of Meta Inc. Furthermore, the diversification of online retail firms threatens to
40
compete with the company. For example, giants like Amazon.com is in a position to offer
online advertising services through its network of affiliate websites. This element of the
PESTEL/PESTLE Analysis shows that Meta Inc. must continue improving its social media
and display advertising services to retain customers.
Ecological/Environmental Factors
Facebook’s social media business is partly linked to the natural environment. The effects of
ecological issues and trends on the company’s remote or macro-environment are determined
in this element of the PESTEL/PESTLE Analysis. The following ecological external factors
influence the company:
1. Increasing emphasis on business sustainability (opportunity)

2. Increase complexity of waste disposal standards (opportunity)
3. Climate change (threat & opportunity)
Meta Inc. has the opportunity to enhance its social media business sustainability to satisfy
concerns regarding the natural environment. Also, the company can implement better waste
disposal policies and standards for its corporate operations. Such effort can address the
increasing complexity of waste disposal standards, especially in Western countries. Facebook
faces the threat of climate change, which could prompt the business to transfer its servers and
other equipment to another location in the future. Improving Meta Inc.’s corporate social
responsibility standing can help address the external factors shown in this element of the
PESTEL/PESTLE analysis.
Legal Factors
Laws impose requirements and limits on Facebook’s business. This element of the
PESTEL/PESTLE Analysis covers the effects of legal systems and regulations on firms’
remote or macro-environment. The legal external factors notable in Facebook’s case are as
follows:
1. Improving patent laws worldwide (opportunity)

2. Increasing regulatory support for free Wi-Fi (opportunity)
41
3. Internet regulation in China (threat & opportunity)
4. Increasing regulation on online data (threat)
Meta Inc. has the opportunity to innovate and introduce new products, with the expectation of
legal protection based on improving patent laws around the world. In addition, this
PESTEL/PESTLE analysis points to the increasing coverage of free Wi-Fi as a beneficial
trend. For example, based on this external factor, the company can expand its social media
reach in more areas worldwide. However, Facebook suffers from its ban in China. Nonetheless,
the firm has the opportunity to adjust its services and negotiate with the Chinese government
to gain access to the country’s online social networking market. Online data collection, sharing
and processing regulation markedly increased in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica
scandal and related issues in 2018. This external factor threatens the company and the online
display advertising industry. Overall, this element of the PESTEL/PESTLE Analysis shows
that legal external factors mainly provide opportunities that Meta Inc. could take to expand its
operations and market reach.
Recommendations
This PESTEL/PESTLE analysis of Meta Inc. stresses the importance of strategic reforms to
address major opportunities in the global social media and online advertising market. The
company needs strategies to protect the business from the threats identified in this external
analysis. For example, management and strategies need to address the threat of governmental
crackdown and corresponding regulation on online data collection and processing. Such issues
require strategic management measures that recognize the urgency of governmental and
regulatory implementations.
It is recommended that Meta Inc. address issues with China’s government to penetrate the
country’s social media market, which is among the biggest in the world. The objective is to
have the ban on the social network lifted. Another recommendation is that the company should
develop new products that support online retailers to create new revenue streams for the
corporation. Moreover, based on this PESTEL/PESTLE analysis, it is recommended that
Facebook diversify its business. Diversification can reduce the firm’s market risk exposure.
42
43
Operations management of Meta
Meta Inc.’s success as one of the biggest online social media businesses is based on effectively
addressing the 10 strategic decision areas of operations management (OM). Each of these areas
pertains to operational concerns to maximize the productivity and overall efficiency of the
corporation. In this business analysis case of Facebook, human resources and facilities are
developed to ensure that operations management is effective in achieving the strategic
objectives for these 10 OM decisions.
For example, jobs are designed with consideration for optimizing work efficiency along with
the effectiveness of Facebook’s organizational structure. With a growing number of users
worldwide, the company must support its social networking website and mobile apps with best
practices in operations management. Through continuous improvement, the company ensures
that it meets its objectives for the 10 strategic decision areas of operations management. Such
a business condition facilitates strategic management success in optimizing Meta Inc.’s
operations, productivity, and corresponding financial performance.
Operations management (OM) at Meta Inc. is developed and maintained based on the
company’s strategies and objectives for efficiency and continuous improvement in all business
areas. The company satisfies the 10 strategic decisions for maximum productivity of its social
media operations. The consequences of this OM situation include competence in dealing with
the competitive effects of firms like Google LLC (parent company of YouTube
LLC), Amazon.com Inc., Twitter Inc., and Snap Inc. (Snapchat).
10 Decision Areas of OM
1. Design of Goods and Services.
Part of Facebook’s design strategy is to continuously innovate its products. In this decision
area, the objective is to achieve a product design that aligns with business goals through
operations management streamlining. In this case, continuous innovation of the social media
network and mobile apps, along with new product development, is seen as a strategic approach
to ensure the company’s competitiveness in the long term. Facebook’s marketing mix or 4P is
partially based on the outputs involving this OM area. The company develops its marketing
strategies to accommodate the design of services offered to target customers.
44
2. Quality Management.
Operations management focuses on meeting customers’ quality requirements in this strategic

decision area. Facebook meets such requirements through suitable human resource policies.
For example, the company uses small teams to rapidly innovate and continually improve the
quality of the multinational social network and related services. In addition, the company
collects feedback from users to address issues based on user experience. These operations
management efforts facilitate the fulfillment of Meta Inc.’s vision and mission statements. For
instance, high quality of social media services leads to better global communication that
attracts online users. In turn, a larger user base satisfies market penetration, which is among
the approaches included in Meta Inc.’s generic competitive strategy and intensive growth
strategies.
3. Process and Capacity Design.
Considering its online nature, Meta Inc. addresses this strategic decision area through
automation. Operations managers are concerned about the processes and resources needed for
adequate social media service capacity for users and advertisers. In Facebook’s operations
management, online technologies are used alongside an innovative approach to human
resource management. For example, iteration of product improvement and innovation is
supported through online technologies that facilitate efficient dissemination of data among
work teams in the company’s facilities. The competencies identified in the SWOT analysis of
Meta Inc. are supported and enhanced through effectiveness in maintaining processes and
capacities that suit the specific needs of the social media and digital advertising business.
4. Location Strategy.
The operations management objective in this strategic decision area is to optimize nearness to
resources and markets. In the case of Meta Inc., nearness to markets is not an issue because the
company’s social media services are accessible around the world through the Internet.
However, the firm is concerned about nearness to resources. Facebook’s approach is to keep
its operations near the best talent pools. For example, the company’s headquarters are located
45
in Silicon Valley, which provides access to the area’s high quality talent suitable for computing
technology businesses. Also, Facebook maintains most of its overseas offices in urban centers
for ease of access to the labor market.
5. Layout Design and Strategy.
The efficiency of internal communication and movement of human resources and materials is
the strategic objective in this decision area of operations management. Facebook addresses this
objective through innovative layouts of its offices. For example, the company integrates open
spaces to encourage brainstorming and creative interactions. Such interactions are essential in
supporting Facebook’s product development processes to improve the social media business.
On the other hand, for facilities that house web servers, Facebook’s operations managers use
industry standard layouts to maximize capacity and utilization.
6. Job Design and Human Resources.
Meta Inc.’s operations management is concerned with developing human resources in this
strategic decision area. The company’s aim is to maintain an adequate and capable workforce
for the online social media business. For example, the company uses a continuous recruitment
strategy. Facebook’s corporate social responsibility strategy addresses this concern through a
Ph.D. program that allows students to work at the company’s offices. This program also allows
the company to access high quality talent and future hires. Such efforts in this operations
management area influence the implementation of Meta Inc.’s organizational culture, which
depends on the social dynamics among workers.
7. Supply Chain Management.
The bulk of Facebook’s operations management concern in this strategic decision area focuses
on corporate facilities. Most of these facilities are located where supplies are accessible or
where cost effectiveness can be maximized. For example, many of the company’s data centers
are located in areas with optimal access to equipment supply, the labor market, energy, and
suitable environmental operational conditions. Collaborative effort with suppliers helps
minimize their competitive force determined in the Porter’s Five Forces analysis of Meta
46
Inc. In addition, the company develops and maintains its data centers, instead of outsourcing
operations. This approach supports the competence of Facebook’s social networking website,
mobile apps, and related online advertising services.
8. Inventory Management.
The objective in this strategic decision area is to optimize inventory purchasing and holding.
Meta Inc.’s approach for this area is just-in-time inventory, which involves same-day
purchasing and installation of supplies, especially equipment used for the data centers. The
company designs its data centers and outsources the manufacturing of equipment. Strategic
efforts in this area of operations management contribute to technological enhancement to
address relevant technological trends, such as the ones identified in the PESTEL/PESTLE
analysis of Meta Inc.
9. Scheduling.
Facebook focuses on continuous iteration to address this strategic decision of operations

management. This area’s objective is to ensure that intermediate and short-term schedules
satisfy business needs. In this case, scheduling for data centers is regular, while scheduling for
offices is flexible. For example, at data centers, equipment arrives and is installed on a daily
basis. At offices, Meta Inc. uses flexible schedules to enable and empower work teams to
creatively discuss and solve problems. Such flexibility supports the continuous improvement
of the company’s social networking website, mobile apps, and advertising services.
10. Maintenance.
Meta Inc. operations managers use a variety of approaches for adequacy of business processes.
Such adequacy is the operations management objective in this strategic decision area. For
example, the company has a data center located in Sweden to take advantage of the country’s
cold climate to minimize maintenance costs for equipment temperature control. Meta Inc. also
has dedicated IT teams for iterating and producing new versions of the company’s social media
website and mobile apps.
47
Productivity at Meta Inc.
Facebook’s productivity depends on the effective application of operations management

principles. The company uses a wide variety of criteria or measures to determine actual
productivity in supporting its social media business. The following are some of the criteria the
corporation uses for this purpose:
1. Number of servers per day (Data center productivity)

2. Issues solved per day (Work team productivity)
3. Number of tickets/reports processed per day (Customer service productivity)
Meta Inc.’s productivity objectives aim to match the capacities of technological resources used
in the business. Such matching helps maximize the actual operational outputs and benefits of
the company’s assets. Also, various subsidiaries, such as Oculus VR and WhatsApp Inc., apply
different sets of productivity criteria in their strategic operations management.
48
Meta Inc.’s Organizational Culture
Meta Inc. develops its human resources with the hacker organizational culture in mind. The
company maintains its competitiveness partly through its organizational culture. A firm’s
organizational or corporate culture defines the traditions, values and customs that influence
employee behavior. In this business analysis case of Meta Inc., the corporate culture translates
to the way employees solve problems, as the organization’s social networking website, apps,
and social media services evolve.
The company also uses its organizational culture to promote creativity and innovation, which
address competition against firms like Google LLC, Twitter Inc., and Snap Inc. (Snapchat). As
a global online technology company, Meta Inc. uses its corporate culture to build competitive
advantage and highly capable human resources. The company must keep adapting its cultural
characteristics to continue its effectiveness in addressing cultural challenges linked to online
market dynamics.
Facebook’s organizational culture emphasizes creativity and improvement. This corporate

culture facilitates innovation, which is essential in the social media business, especially as the
company diversifies outside its social networking website and apps. Meta Inc.’s generic
strategy and intensive strategies are developed with consideration for cultural support for
strategic management and implementation.
Features
Meta Inc. describes its corporate culture as a hacker culture, which pushes employees to strive
for improvement. Such improvement focuses on Facebook’s mission and vision statements.
The company applies its organizational culture as a tool for supporting business resilience and
competitiveness. For example, through continuous improvement and iteration in the “hacker
way,” the company supports social media and online advertising service enhancement.
Also, Meta Inc.’s organizational structure affects the company’s workforce development.
Human resources are developed and maintained through training that ensures talent and skills
for the company’s aims in creativity and innovation for its social media business. The
following characteristics are the most notable in Facebook’s organizational culture:
1. Creative problem solving and decision-making
49
2. Boldness
3. Openness
4. Speed
5. Continuous improvement
Creative Problem Solving and Decision-Making.
Meta Inc. values creative problem solving and decision-making, which are embodied in the
company’s organizational culture. This corporate cultural characteristic pertains to the ability
of employees to generate unusual ideas that enhance the company’s social networking and
related offerings. Rewards are provided through recognition, incentives and other forms that
motivate workers to be more creative in contributing to the business. Such rewards help
address Meta Inc.’s corporate social responsibilities to its stakeholders, particularly its
employees. Through this organizational cultural characteristic, the company maintains
competitive edge against other firms in the international market, especially other social media
companies that offer online advertising services. Also, business competitiveness is partly
achieved based on the technological trends enumerated in the PESTEL/PESTLE analysis of
Meta Inc.
Boldness.
Facebook’s organizational culture facilitates boldness in employees’ activities. This cultural

feature aims to maximize the company’s flexibility in addressing business issues. For example,
the corporate culture encourages workers to tackle issues right away, instead of waiting for
such issues to escalate to senior management. The company benefits from this cultural
characteristic in terms of minimizing the negative effects of problems encountered in the social
media business.
Openness.
Openness significantly influences Facebook’s corporate culture. This cultural feature

highlights the importance of effective and efficient internal communications. For example, the
company has systems to facilitate the dissemination of information critical to solving problems.
50
In addition, Facebook’s organizational culture facilitates openness in terms of minimizing
restrictions on employees’ activities. For instance, the company empowers workers to focus
on the problems that they think are most important or relevant to the business. This
characteristic of the corporate culture supports employees’ problem solving abilities to enhance
the company’s social networking and online advertising services.
Speed.
Meta Inc. has the ability to easily respond to trends and changes in users’ preferences. This
ability is partly based on employees’ speed in responding to problems in the social media
business. Such speed is a significant feature of Facebook’s organizational culture. The
company believes that it is essential that its human resources rapidly react to new needs in the
multinational market. This corporate cultural characteristic is implemented through the use of
small teams. Small teams are highly flexible and can move fast to support rapid product
development processes.
Continuous Improvement.
Meta Inc. has an organizational culture that facilitates continuous improvement. The company
adheres to the principle that improvement is a never-ending process. This cultural feature
encourages its small teams to continuously iterate products. This cultural feature provides
opportunities for the company to regularly evaluate its social networking website, mobile apps,
and related products, and supports the business strengths shown in the SWOT analysis of Meta
Inc.
Advantages & Disadvantages
Facebook’s status as one of the world’s biggest social media businesses is partly founded on
the company’s organizational culture, which is known as a hacker culture. An advantage of
this corporate culture is its support for flexibility, especially in rapidly addressing issues and
problems in the social media business. Another advantage is that the culture facilitates Meta
Inc.’s continuous improvement essential in the context of online social networking. For
51
example, continuous improvement helps develop solutions to online security issues arising
from technological advances and changes to the Internet.
A possible disadvantage of Facebook’s organizational culture is the difficulty in strictly

implementing new mandates that impose limits on employees’ activities. This is so because
the company’s workers are accustomed to a corporate culture where they are empowered to
flexibly do their jobs. Such empowerment supports continuous improvement. Meta Inc. can
address this disadvantage through management initiatives that improve strategic
implementation and internal communication effectiveness.
52
Meta Inc.’s Organizational Structure
Facebook’s organizational structure is a variation of the traditional organizational structure of
businesses. The company’s structure is adapted to suit the needs of operations involving
information technology and the Internet. A company’s organizational or corporate structure
defines the composition and design of the organization to meet its needs. Firms have different
corporate structures based on the nature and goals of their businesses. In this business analysis
case of Meta Inc., the corporate structure is a response to the dynamics of the global online
social media market. The nature and characteristics of the company’s social networking
website and apps, and business goals (see Meta Inc.’s Corporate Vision and Mission
Statements) partly dictate the company’s needs. These needs are translated to the features of
the organizational structure that Meta Inc. uses to support its business. The appropriateness of
the corporate structure facilitates the company’s growth and development.
Meta Inc. has an organizational structure that enables the social media business to expand and
diversify. This corporate structure also yields competitive advantage to make the company’s
online social network resilient against competition. Even though the Porter’s Five Forces
analysis of Meta Inc. shows that the force of competition is moderate, measures are needed to
address the aggressiveness of competitors in the international online advertising market. These
competitors include Google LLC, Snap Inc. (Snapchat), and Twitter Inc. Facebook must
continue enhancing its corporate structure to counteract the negative effects of competition.
Features
Facebook has a matrix organizational structure. The key characteristics of this structure address
the company’s organizational needs, especially the need for creativity and innovation. The
following main features of Facebook’s corporate structure are notable:
1. Corporate Function-Based Teams

2. Geographic Divisions
3. Product-Based Divisions
Corporate Function-Based Teams.
53
Meta Inc. maintains corporate teams based on their business functions in managing operational
activities throughout the organizational structure. This structural characteristic is based on the
various needs of the online social media business. For example, the company needs technology
research and development. Because of the matrix corporate structure, some function-based
teams have blurred boundaries with geographic and product-based divisions in the company.
A senior manager or executive heads each team. The following are the main corporate
function-based teams in Facebook’s organizational structure:
1. Chief Executive
2. Finance
3. Operations
4. Information
5. Technology
6. Accounting
7. Privacy
8. Security
9. Marketing
10. Legal
11. Business & Marketing
12. Global Public Policy
13. Investor Relations
14. Product Management
15. Human Resources
Geographic Divisions.
Regional divisions are another major feature of Facebook’s corporate structure. Geographic
location is a determinant of this structural characteristic. The company uses these divisions in
light of the differences in social networking and online advertising market dynamics. This
organizational structural characteristic addresses differences among the behaviors of people
and advertisers in using Meta Inc.’s social networking website and apps. For example, Latin
American advertisers tend to use the company’s social media services differently, compared
54
to European advertisers. Human resources are also managed regionally. Geographic factors are
included in strategic management to address the external factors in the remote or macro-
environment of the business, as shown in the PESTEL/PESTLE analysis of Meta Inc. Because
of the company’s matrix structure, some of these geographic divisions share resources and
managers with function-based teams. The intersections between geographic divisions and
function-based teams determine many aspects of Meta Inc.’s operations management strategy
and productivity measures. Even with these geographic divisions in its corporate structure, the
company does not have senior corporate executive teams for each and every region. Instead,
regional management teams are used. Meta Inc.’s organizational structure includes the
following geographic divisions:
1. North America
2. Latin America
3. Europe, Middle East & Africa
4. Asia & South Pacific
Product-Based Divisions.
Meta Inc. employs product-based divisions in its organizational structure. This structural
feature involves corporate or global teams that manage operations pertaining to specific
products. Such global or corporate scope is a consequence of the digital and online nature of
the social media business. While most of the company’s operations are focused on its social
networking services, potential expansion and diversification are also considered. For example,
the business is headed toward changing or adding more product-based divisions in its corporate
structure, as new products or ventures are made. Such changes influence Facebook’s marketing
mix or 4Ps. Marketing strategies and tactics are based on products and their management.
Facebook’s organizational structure includes the following product-based divisions:
1. Family of Apps
2. New Platforms and Infrastructure
3. Central Product Services
55
Advantages & Disadvantages
The matrix organizational structure provides flexibility to Meta Inc. and its multinational
operations in the social media and online advertising market. This flexibility is a structural
advantage that enables the company to easily respond to market changes and trends. Another
advantage of this corporate structure is significant corporate control. For example, corporate
function-based teams are a characteristic that allows Meta Inc. to maintain control and
direction on its operations worldwide. Moreover, the product-based divisions support
creativity and innovation in product development.
Despite its advantages, Meta Inc.’s organizational structure has the disadvantage of possible
difficulty in implementing directives throughout the corporate structure. This difficulty is due
to variations in regional management initiatives, based on the company’s geographical
divisions. Still, these divisions are necessary to ensure that the business satisfies sociocultural
and political variations among countries and regions.
56
Generic Strategy & Intensive Growth Strategies
Meta Inc. has a generic strategy and intensive growth strategies that maintain business
competitive advantage based on efficiency and accessibility of online social media services.
Michael Porter’s model for generic competitive strategies indicates the company’s approach
and strategic direction for business growth. In this business analysis case, it is determined that
Facebook’s generic strategy ensures growth and competitive advantage through the social
network’s features and ease of access to capture a bigger share of the market, addressing
competition against companies like Google, Twitter, and Snapchat, which have significant
presence in the online advertising market. In relation, based on the off Matrix, Facebook’s
intensive strategies emphasize the use of market penetration as the primary thrust to grow the
business. The company’s generic strategy and intensive growth strategies align with business
strengths (see SWOT Analysis of Meta Inc.) and enable the company to keep its market
position as one of the world’s leading online social networking firms.
Facebook’s generic competitive strategy (Porter’s model) supports the business through
operational efficiency and customers’ ease of access. Related intensive strategies grow
Facebook’s market position and revenues by making the social networking website accessible
in more regions worldwide. The effects of these intensive strategies and generic strategy
impact the competitive landscape (see Porter’s Five Forces Analysis of Meta Inc.) and the
external factors that influence the company’s business performance relative to the
multinational industry.
Generic Strategy (Porter’s Model)
Meta Inc. uses the cost leadership generic competitive strategy. This generic strategy involves
minimizing the costs of doing business. Cost minimization enables the company to reduce its
prices competitively. The company also broadly provides its online social media services to
the global market. This condition is achieved through the nature of Facebook’s business. For
example, the company uses computing technologies to maximize the efficiency of its social
networking website. The online nature of this business enables Facebook to easily reach
Internet users across the international market, thereby satisfying the broad competitive scope
of the cost leadership generic strategy.
57
The cost leadership generic competitive strategy leads to the strategic objective of expanding
Facebook’s online social network user base. A related financial strategic objective would be
to increase the company’s revenues by at least 35% annually. In this generic strategy for
competitive advantage, Facebook has the potential to satisfy such strategic objectives by
focusing on growing its membership, which currently stands at more than 2 billion monthly
active users. Cost leadership is strongly linked to the company’s intensive growth strategies.
Intensive Growth Strategies
Market Penetration.
Facebook achieves growth primarily through the market penetration intensive strategy. The
objective of this intensive growth strategy is to maximize current market share. For example,
as one of its strategic objectives, the company increases its share in current markets by
establishing alliances with telecommunications companies to increase the number of users who
access the company’s social media service through the Facebook mobile app. This intensive
growth strategy supports the company’s generic competitive strategy of cost leadership by
maximizing market reach using existing assets.
Market Development.
Market development is the secondary intensive strategy that Facebook uses for business
growth. The objective in this intensive growth strategy is to enter new markets. For example,
one of Facebook’s strategic objectives is to coordinate with governments to allow their citizens
to access the online social network. This intensive strategy aligns with Facebook’s corporate
mission and vision statements, which emphasize growth through global market reach. Such
market reach maximizes business effectiveness and efficiency, and satisfies the company’s
cost leadership generic competitive strategy.
Diversification.
Meta Inc. uses diversification as a supporting intensive strategy for growth. The main objective
in this intensive growth strategy is to establish new businesses. For example, the company
58
acquired the firm Oculus VR to offer virtual reality technology that complements social
networking services. Through this intensive growth strategy, Meta Inc.’s strategic objective is
to purchase or establish new subsidiaries or businesses to increase revenues and market reach.
The cost leadership generic competitive strategy involves cost minimization that supports the
implementation of this intensive strategy.
Product Development.
Product development is a supporting intensive growth strategy used in Meta Inc.’s social media
business. This intensive strategy involves offering new products. For example, as a strategic
objective, Meta Inc. developed mobile apps to complement the social networking website. The
company continues to develop new product offerings. This intensive strategy
influences Facebook’s marketing mix or 4Ps. New products attract more individual users and
advertisers, which are the main source of the company’s revenues. The cost leadership generic
competitive strategy optimizes profit margins when implementing this intensive growth
strategy.
59
Marketing Mix (4Ps) Analysis
Meta Inc. uses a marketing mix that supports and capitalizes on the company’s popularity. A
marketing mix is the combination of strategies and tactics that an organization employs to
succeed with its marketing plan, with focus on the variables of Product, Place, Promotion, and
Price (the 4Ps). In Facebook’s marketing mix, some of the main considerations include the
online nature of its social networking website and mobile apps. Users’ social behaviors
determine Facebook’s generic strategy, intensive strategies, and marketing strategies. For
example, customers’ responses to certain communication tools on the online platform
influence the company’s business performance against online advertising competitors
like Google LLC (parent company of YouTube LLC), Twitter Inc., Snap Inc. (Snapchat),
and Amazon.com. In this case, the market focus is on individual users and advertisers who pay
for the company’s display advertising services. An analysis of Facebook’s marketing mix
reveals the marketing benefits of the online and social characteristics of the business.
Associated strategic management in marketing must support business development while
addressing target market demands and concerns.
The marketing mix (4Ps) of Meta Inc. facilitates efficiency in reaching target customers. For
example, the business uses advanced Internet technologies in its products to efficiently deliver
its services in the global social media and digital advertising industry. The strategies and tactics
contained in this marketing mix shows that Facebook could benefit from broadening its online
advertising services, and from increasing the market penetration of its social networking
website and mobile apps. Market penetration complements Meta Inc.’s corporate mission and
vision statements.
Products
Meta Inc. is known for its social networking website, mobile apps and online advertising
services. This component of the marketing mix identifies the organizational outputs that the
company offers to its target market. The following are the main products of the company:
1. Facebook
2. Instagram
3. Messenger
4. WhatsApp
60
5. Oculus
Among the 4Ps, the product element has major influence on how the business groups its human
resources and corresponding operations. As a result, this 4P variable influences Facebook’s
corporate structure. For example, each product category has a dedicated group of employees
for operations and development. As an online business, the company is known for social media
services available through its Facebook social networking website and mobile app. The
Messenger instant messaging service is now separate from the main Facebook service. In
addition, the company manages and operates Instagram (another social media service) and
WhatsApp (an instant messaging service). Also, the company acquired Oculus VR, which is a
virtual reality technology business. These products attract users on the basis of their social
nature, communication effectiveness, and technological advancement. The corporation uses
the popularity of its social media services as a foundation for its display advertising service.
This display advertising service becomes more attractive as the company’s multinational social
networking website and apps gain more users. These conditions show that Facebook’s
marketing mix is primarily dependent on the membership of the online social network. The
success of these products hinges on market opportunities and the business strengths
enumerated in the SWOT analysis of Meta Inc.
Place
As an online technology business, Meta Inc. offers its services through the Internet. This
component of the marketing mix determines the venues where the company offers its products.
In this case, these places are as follows:
1. Websites
2. Mobile apps
3. Retail stores
Meta Inc. provides social media services and digital advertising services through its websites
and mobile apps. For example, users can access accounts through a browser or through a
corresponding mobile app. Advertisers also use websites and apps to access the company’s
display advertising services. In addition, the company’s Oculus products are available via
61
online and brick-and-mortar retailers. Based on this component of the marketing mix, Meta
Inc.’s strategies focus on digital technologies to enable effective and efficient global access to
its products. Facebook’s operations management strategy and productivity measures influence
product distribution performance.
Promotion
Facebook promotes its social media services to gain more users for a larger membership base.
Among the 4P variables, this component describes the company’s marketing communications
activities with its target customers. Facebook’s business involves the following promotion
activities, arranged according to importance:
1. Viral marketing (most important)

2. Direct marketing
3. Advertising
4. Public relations
Facebook’s business heavily relies on viral marketing, which involves word-of-mouth

promotion. For example, because of persuasion from friends, new members create accounts on
the company’s social networking website. Viral marketing is a critical success factor relevant
in the marketing mix and the social network’s international popularity. Direct marketing also
contributes to the company’s business success. For example, the firm directly recommends
advertising campaigns to Facebook page owners, such as businesses and other organizations.
This tactic involves showing samples of display advertisements to page owners to persuade
them to pay for advertisements on the social media website and mobile apps. In addition, the
company advertises its online social network through various display advertisement networks,
including Google’s. Moreover, public relations activities linked to Facebook’s corporate social
responsibility programs promote the brand and such social media services around the world.
This component of the marketing mix shows that viral marketing supports business success
despite the moderate force of competitive rivalry determined in the Porter’s Five Forces
analysis of Meta Inc.
62
Prices
Facebook employs a combination of pricing strategies. In this component of the marketing

mix, the company’s strategies for price points and price ranges are considered. The company
uses the following pricing strategies for its online display advertising service:
1. Market-oriented pricing
2. Pay-what-you-want pricing
In using the market-oriented pricing strategy, Meta Inc. uses competitors’ prices as basis for
pricing its display advertising services. These prices are typically applied per impression or
per click, among other user-generated actions on the company’s social networking website and
mobile apps. On the other hand, in using the pay-what-you-want pricing strategy, Meta Inc.
allows advertisers to decide how much to pay above a certain minimum price. Based on this
component of the marketing mix, flexibility in pricing is a factor that attracts advertisers to the
company’s online display advertising service. Such flexibility considers the link between
industry conditions and the economic trends shown in the PESTEL/PESTLE analysis of Meta
Inc.
63
Corporate Social Responsibility & Stakeholder Analysis
Meta Inc. supports its social media business through corporate social responsibility (CSR)
programs that address stakeholders’ interests. In Archie B. Carroll’s theory of corporate
citizenship, businesses affect stakeholders, and vice versa. In this business analysis case of
Facebook, the stakeholders are diverse because of the global reach and nature of the social
network. As one of the largest social media businesses in the international market, the company
affects billions of online users as stakeholders. These online users include individuals, groups,
and businesses. Meta Inc. needs to ensure that its corporate social responsibility programs and
policies are satisfactory in addressing stakeholders’ concerns. Doing so supports customer
loyalty and business competitive advantages, such as the strengths identified in the SWOT
analysis of Meta Inc. the Company needs corporate citizenship initiatives that prioritize the
most significant of these stakeholders. In this way, the corporate responsibility approach
recognizes resource limits while strategically enhancing business image and competence.
A stakeholder analysis of Meta Inc. underscores the significance of comprehensive corporate

social responsibility (CSR) initiatives and programs. The company’s corporate citizenship
strategy satisfies stakeholders’ concerns while also supporting Facebook’s business strategic
objectives in the multinational online social media market. This corporate responsibility
approach helps protect the business against the competitive effects of the CSR programs of
other online advertising companies like Google LLC (parent company of YouTube LLC), Snap
Inc. (Snapchat), Twitter Inc., and Amazon.com Inc.
CSR Initiatives
Meta’s social media business affects stakeholders around the world. This situation requires
global standards for the company’s corporate social responsibility initiatives to satisfy
stakeholders’ interests. For example, the company must maintain privacy policies that satisfy
various standards and expectations among users and governments. Facebook Inc. has the
following stakeholder groups relevant to corporate citizenship, arranged according to
importance in its CSR strategy:
1. Users/Members (most important)

2. Advertisers
3. Employees
64
4. Governments
5. Communities
Users/Members.
Facebook’s online social media service has billions of monthly active users. These users or
members of the social network are the stakeholder group that receives the company’s top
prioritization in corporate citizenship, considering Facebook Inc.’s mission and vision
statements. Users are significant in CSR because they determine the popularity and
attractiveness of the company’s display advertising service. For example, advertisers are more
likely to pay for such service as the online social network gains more users or members. Thus,
the business aims to continually grow its user base, which aligns with Facebook’s generic
competitive strategy and intensive growth strategies. As stakeholders, users are interested in
the ease of using the firm’s social media services and in the privacy and security of personal
information. The company faces criticism on the ethics of addressing this stakeholder group
because of data privacy and security concerns such as those involving Cambridge Analytica.
However, Facebook’s corporate citizenship approach continues to improve its social
networking website and mobile apps to make it easier for users to protect the privacy of their
accounts. Moreover, the company is the primary participant in the launch of Internet.org in
2013, which aims to make the company’s platform and other online resources more accessible
in the developing world. Nonetheless, Internet.org faces criticism regarding net neutrality.
Thus, even though Facebook Inc.’s corporate social responsibility strategy satisfies the main
interests of users or members as stakeholders, further improvement is needed in this area.
Advertisers.
Advertisers are the chief source of Facebook’s income. Thus, this stakeholder group is
significant because it directly influences the company’s financial status. The CSR interests of
these stakeholders include effective and efficient advertising service, as well as accurate data
from the company. In its corporate social responsibility efforts, Facebook Inc. addresses these
interests through automated reporting to minimize human intervention in the advertising
process. Also, the provision of options for advertisers to target specific audiences on the online
social network maximizes the benefits of the advertising service and contributes to the
65
fulfillment of corporate citizenship in this area. Therefore, Facebook’s corporate social
responsibility strategy addresses the interests of this stakeholder group.
Employees.
Facebook Inc. values employees in terms of their contributions to the social media business.
These corporate citizenship stakeholders are significant in affecting the company’s evolution,
especially in developing and improving products. The CSR interests of employees include high
compensation and career development. Facebook’s corporate social responsibility programs
directly address these interests through competitive human resource policies. For example, the
company gives some of the highest salaries in the industry, especially as a way of attracting
talent while competing against firms like Google in the labor market. Such efforts show that
the company satisfies corporate social responsibilities in considering the interests of employees
as a major stakeholder group. Addressing this stakeholder group’s concerns
influences Facebook’s corporate culture, which shapes employees’ behaviors.
Governments.
Governments are significant CSR stakeholders because they impose requirements on the social
media business, as shown in the PESTEL/PESTLE analysis of Facebook Inc. This influence
keeps the company in compliance with governmental policies and interests, which include
regulatory requirements. Facebook’s corporate social responsibility strategy involves
negotiations and partnerships with governments to show support for governmental efforts and
programs. In the case of China, for example, Facebook continues to participate in education
programs as a corporate citizenship approach to convince the government to open the market
to the online social network.
Communities.
Facebook Inc.’s corporate citizenship efforts give the least priority to communities as a
stakeholder group. These stakeholders significantly affect the company by influencing the
perception of users/members and advertisers. Communities are interested in developmental
support from companies. Facebook addresses such CSR interests through green technology
66
and Internet.org, which was launched in 2013 as a way to increase online access in developing
countries. However, critics argue that Internet.org violates net neutrality and is just another
way to promote the company’s online social network over competitors. Also, a limited Ph.D.
fellowship program allows students to work with the company, and for the corporation to find
new hires. These efforts show that Facebook Inc.’s corporate social responsibility strategy is
weak in satisfying the interests of communities as a stakeholder group.
Meta Inc.’s CSR Performance
As the leading social media company, Facebook Inc. has corporate social responsibility
policies and programs that satisfy the interests of some of its major stakeholders. For example,
the interests of advertisers, employees, and governments are satisfied. These programs partly
support public relations in Facebook’s marketing mix or 4P. However, the company’s CSR
strategy neglects to provide satisfactory support for the interests of communities as
stakeholders. Also, the company faces issues in fulfilling corporate citizenship goals pertaining
to the users/members of its social network. Facebook Inc., together with other firms, launched
Internet.org, but this effort is criticized as a violation of net neutrality and as having hidden
proprietary motives.
Based on these CSR challenges, it is recommended that Facebook Inc. enhance its corporate
citizenship initiatives to satisfy the concerns of communities, especially through sustainability
and ecological community development programs, which are two of the firm’s corporate social
responsibilities. In addition, it is recommended that the company develop more stringent data
privacy and security policies for strict compliance. This recommendation addresses the
interests of users/members and communities, while contributing to business competitive
advantage to counteract the moderate competitive forces shown in the Porter’s Five Forces
analysis of Facebook Inc.
Financial statements
Balance sheet
META PLATFORMS, INC.
67
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(In millions, except for number of shares and par value)
December
31,
2022 2021
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents $ $
14,681 16,601
Marketable securities 26,057 31,397
Accounts receivable, net 13,466 14,039
Prepaid expenses and other current assets 5,345 4,629
Total current assets 59,549 66,666
Non-marketable equity securities 6,201 6,775
Property and equipment, net 79,518 57,809
Operating lease right-of-use assets 12,673 12,155
Intangible assets, net 897 634
Goodwill 20,306 19,197
Other assets 6,583 2,751
Total assets
185,727 165,987
Liabilities and stockholders' equity

Current liabilities:
Accounts payable $4,990 $4,083
Partners payable 1,117 1,052
Operating lease liabilities, current 1,367 1,127
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities 19,552 14,873
Total current liabilities 27,026 21,135
Operating lease liabilities, non-current 15,301 12,746
68
Long-term debt 9,923
Other liabilities 7,764 7,227
Total liabilities 60,014 41,108
Commitments and contingencies
Stockholders' equity:
Common stock, $0.000006 par value; 5,000 million Class A shares
authorized, 2,247 million and 2,328 million shares issued and
outstanding, as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively;
4,141
million Class B shares authorized, 367 million and 413 million
shares
issued and outstanding, as of December 31, 2022 and 2021,
respectively
Additional paid-in capital 64,444 55,811
Accumulated other comprehensive loss (3,530) (693)
Retained earnings 64,799 69,761
Total stockholders' equity 125,713 124,879
Total liabilities and stockholders' equity $ $
185,727 165,987
Income statement

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(In millions, except per share amounts)
Year
Ended
December
31,
2022 2021 2020
Revenue $
$116,609 117,929 $85,965
69
Costs and expenses:
Cost of revenue 25,249 22,649 16,692
Research and development 35,338 24,655 18,447
Marketing and sales 15,262 14,043 11,591
General and administrative 11,816 9,829 6,564
Total costs and expenses 87,665 71,176 53,294
Income from operations 28,944 46,753 32,671
Interest and other income (expense), net (125) 531 509
Income before provision for income taxes 28,819 47,284 33,180
Provision for income taxes 5,619 7,914 4,034
Net income $ $
23,200 39,370 $29,146
Earnings per share attributable to Class A and

Class B common
stockholders:
Basic $ $ $
8.63 13.99 10.22
Diluted $ $ $
8.59 13.77 10.09
Weighted-average shares used to compute
earnings per share
attributable to Class A and Class B common
stockholders:
Basic 2,687 2,815 2,851
Diluted 2,702 2,859 2,888
Share-based compensation expense included in
costs and
expenses:
Cost of revenue $ $ $
768 577 447
70
Research and development 9,361 7,106 4,918
Marketing and sales 1,004 837 691
General and administrative 859 644 480
Total share-based compensation expense $ $ $
11,992 9,164 6,536
Cash flow statement

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH
FLOWS
(In millions)
Year Ended
December 31,
2022 2021 2020
Cash flows from operating activities
Net income $ 39,370
$23,200 $29,146
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net
cash
provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization 8,686 7,967 6,862
Share-based compensation 11,992 9,164 6,536
Deferred income taxes (3,286) 609 (1,192)
Impairment charges for leases and leasehold
improvements 2,218 - -
Abandonment charges for data center assets 1,341 - -
Fair value adjustments for non-marketable 463 (232) 33
securities
Other 178 105 85
Changes in assets and liabilities:
71
Accounts receivable 231 (3,110) (1,512)
Prepaid expenses and other current assets 162 (1,750) 135
Other assets (106) (349) (34)
Accounts payable 210 1,436 (17)
Partners payable 90 (12) 178
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities 4,210 3,544 (946)
Other liabilities 886 941 (527)

Net cash provided by operating activities 50,475 57,683 38,747
Cash flows from investing activities
Purchases of property and equipment (31,431) (18,690) (15,163)
Proceeds relating to property and equipment 245 123 48
Purchases of marketable debt securities (9,626) (30,407) (33,930)
Sales of marketable debt securities 11,083 31,671 11,787
Maturities of marketable debt securities 2,075 10,915 13,984
Purchases of non-marketable equity securities (5) (47) (6,361)
Acquisitions of businesses and intangible (1,312) (851) (388)
assets
Other investing activities 1 (284) (36)
Net cash used in investing activities (28,970) (7,570) (30,059)
Cash flows from financing activities
Taxes paid related to net share settlement of
equity
awards (3,595) (5,515) (3,564)
Repurchases of Class A common stock (27,956) (44,537) (6,272)
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt, net 9,921 - -
Principal payments on finance leases (850) (677) (604)
Other financing activities 344 1 148

Net cash used in financing activities (22,136) (50,728) (10,292)
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash, cash
72
equivalents, and restricted cash (638) (474) 279
Net decrease in cash, cash equivalents, and
restricted cash (1,269) (1,089) (1,325)
Cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash at
beginning of the period 16,865 17,954 19,279
Cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash at
end of
the period $ 16,865
$15,596 $17,954
Reconciliation of cash, cash equivalents, and

restricted cash to the consolidated balance
sheets
Cash and cash equivalents $ 16,601
$14,681 $17,576
Restricted cash, included in prepaid expenses
and
other current assets 294 149 241
Restricted cash, included in other assets 621 115 137
Total cash, cash equivalents, and restricted $ 16,865
cash $15,596 $17,954
73
Revenue streams
Revenue disaggregated by revenue source and by segment consists of the following

(In millions). For comparative purposes, amounts for the year ended December 31,
2020 have been recast:
Year Ended December 31,
2022 2021 2020
Advertising $ $ 114,934 $
113,642 84,169
Other 808 721 657
revenue
Family of 114,450 115,655 84,826
Apps
Reality Labs 2,159 2,274 1,139
Total revenue $ $ 117,929 $
116,609 85,965
74
Bibliography
1. https://www.smartinsights.com/social-media-marketing/facebook-
marketing/facebook-case-study/
2. https://sproutsocial.com/insights/facebook-algorithm/
3. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/120114/how-does-facebook-fb-make-
money.asp
4. Akgül, Y., & Uymaz, A. O. (2022). Facebook/Meta usage in higher education: A deep
learning-based dual-stage SEM-ANN analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 27,
9821-9855.
5. Benzaghta, M. A., Elwalda, A., Mousa, M. M., Erkan, I., & Rahman, M. (2021). SWOT
analysis applications: An integrative literature review. Journal of Global Business Insights,
6(1), 55-73.
6. Helms, M. M., & Nixon, J. (2010). Exploring SWOT analysis – where are we now? A
review of academic research from the last decade. Journal of Strategy and Management,  3 (3),
215-251.
7. Jain, V., Ajmera, P. & Davim, J.P. (2022). SWOT analysis of Industry 4.0 variables
using AHP methodology and structural equation modelling. Benchmarking: An International
Journal, 29(7), 2147-2176.
8. Johnson, D. (2017). Activating activism: Facebook trending topics, media franchises,
and industry disruption. Critical Studies in Media Communication,  34 (2), 148-157.
9. Kraus, S., Kanbach, D. K., Krysta, P. M., Steinhoff, M. M., & Tomini, N. (2022).
Facebook and the creation of the metaverse: Radical business model innovation or incremental
transformation? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 28(9), 52-77.
10. Laor, T. (2022). My social network: Group differences in frequency of use, active use,
and interactive use on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. Technology in Society, 68, 101922.
11. Meta Platforms, Inc. – Form 10-K.
12. Meta Platforms, Inc. – The Metaverse is the Future of Digital Connection.
13. Piranda, D. R., Sinaga, D. Z., & Putri, E. E. (2022). Online marketing strategy in
Facebook Marketplace as a digital marketing tool. Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences and
Business (JHSSB), 1(3), 1-8.
14. United States Department of Commerce – International Trade Administration –
Software and Information Technology Industry.
75
15. Dobbs, M. (2014). Guidelines for applying Porter’s five forces framework: a set of
industry analysis templates. Competitiveness Review, 24(1), 32-45.
16. Facebook Inc. – Company Info.
17. Facebook Inc. – Form 10-K.
18. Grundy, T. (2006). Rethinking and reinventing Michael Porter’s five forces
model. Strategic Change, 15(5), 213-229.
19. Roy, D. (2011). Strategic Foresight and Porter’s Five Forces. GRIN Verlag.
21. Gillespie, A. (2007). PESTEL analysis of the macro-environment. Foundations of
Economics, Oxford University Press, USA.
22. Housing Industry Association (2011). An Introduction to PESTLE Analysis. HIA Ltd.
23. Internet advertising: Segment findings: Global entertainment and media outlook: 2016-
2020: PWC.
24. Murphey, M., & Gause, R. (1974). UCF Research Guides. Industry Analysis. PESTLE
Analysis. Business Horizons, 17(5), 27-38.
25. Roper, K. (2012, November). BIM Implementation: PESTEL Drivers & Barriers
(Cross-national Analysis). In World Workplace 2012. IFMA.
26. U.S. Digital Advertising Landscape and Key Players (Part 2). Forbes.
27. U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary – Cambridge Analytica and the Future of Data
Privacy.
28. Bucher, T. (2021). Facebook. John Wiley & Sons.
29. Ekpe, E. O., Eneh, S. I., & Inyang, B. J. (2015). Leveraging organizational performance
through effective mission statement. International Business Research,  8 (9), 135-141.
30. Gutić Martinčić, S. (2018). Identification of the elements for the creation of corporate
vision. International Journal Vallis Aurea, 4(1), 49-58.
31. Marjanova Jovanov, T., & Fotov, R. (2014). Corporate mission: Much ado about
nothing or essential strategic step?  International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 170-182.
32. Meta Platforms, Inc. – An Update to Our Plans to Restrict Data Access on Facebook.
33. Meta Platforms, Inc. – Form 10-K.
34. Meta Platforms, Inc. – Investor Relations – Resources.
35. Meta Platforms, Inc. – The Facebook Company is Now Meta – Introducing Meta: A
Social Technology Company.
76
36. Meta Platforms, Inc. – What is the Metaverse?
37. Moore, M., & Tambini, D. (Eds.). (2018). Digital dominance: the power of Google,
Amazon, Facebook, and Apple. Oxford University Press.
38. Mosquera, R., Odunowo, M., McNamara, T., Guo, X., & Petrie, R. (2020). The
economic effects of Facebook. Experimental Economics, 23(2), 575-602.
39. Reid, S. E., & Crawford, C. B. (2022). Crafting the Vision Statement.
In Entrepreneurial Vision (pp. 263-276). Springer, Cham.
40. Tomek, G., Vavrova, V., Cervenka, P., Nascakova, J., & Tomcikova, M. (2016).
Corporate vision from management development in the globalization context. In Production
Management and Engineering Sciences  (Vol. 297, No. 303, pp. 297-303). Routledge & GSE
Research.
41. Toh, S. Y., Tehseen, S., Mahmoud, A. B., Cheok, J., Grigoriou, N., & Opute, J. (2022).
Mission statement effectiveness: Investigating managers’ sensemaking role. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 27(2), 329-345.
42. United States Department of Commerce – International Trade Administration –
Software and Information Technology Industry.
43. Xie, W., & Karan, K. (2019). Predicting Facebook addiction and state anxiety without
Facebook by gender, trait anxiety, Facebook intensity, and different Facebook
activities. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 8(1), 79-87.
44. Facebook Inc. – Building the most efficient data centers on Earth.
46. Liu, S., & Jiang, M. (2011). Providing Efficient Decision Support for Green Operations
Management: An Integrated Perspective. INTECH.
47. Najdawi, M. K., Chung, Q. B., & Salaheldin, S. I. (2008). Expert systems for strategic
planning in operations management: a framework for executive decisions. International
Journal of Management and Decision Making, 9(3), 310-327.
48. Schrunder, C. P., Galletly, J. E., & Bicheno, J. R. (1994). A fuzzy, knowledge‐based
decision support tool for production operations management. Expert Systems, 11(1), 3-11.
49. Vance, A. (2013). Inside the Arctic Circle, Where You’re Facebook Data Lives.
Bloomberg.
77
50. Verdaasdonk, P. (1999). Defining an information structure to analyse resource
spending changes of operations management decisions. Production Planning &
Control, 10(2), 162-174.
51. Verdaasdonk, P., & Wouters, M. (2001). A generic accounting model to support
operations management decisions. Production Planning & Control, 12(6), 605-620.
52. Alvesson, M. (2012). Understanding organizational culture. Sage.
53. Buschgens, T., Bausch, A., & Balkin, D. B. (2013). Organizational Culture and
Innovation: A Meta‐Analytic Review. Journal of product innovation management, 30(4), 763-
781.
54. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2005). Diagnosing and changing organizational
culture: Based on the competing values framework. John Wiley & Sons.
55. Facebook Inc. – Company Info.
57. Facebook Inc. – Hacker Culture.
58. Fiordelisi, F., & Ricci, O. (2014). Corporate culture and CEO turnover. Journal of
Corporate Finance, 28, 66-82.
59. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2015). Corporate culture, societal culture, and
institutions. American Economic Review, 105(5), 336-39.
60. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2015). The value of corporate culture. Journal
of Financial Economics, 117(1), 60-76.
61. Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S. (2015). The boundaryless organization:
Breaking the chains of organizational structure. John Wiley & Sons.
62. Facebook, Inc. – Form 10K.
63. Facebook, Inc. Investor Relations – Corporate Governance.
64. Locations – Facebook Careers.
65. Sakhartov, A. V. (2016). Selecting Corporate Structure for Diversified Firms.
In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2016, No. 1, p. 11521). Briarcliff Manor, NY
10510: Academy of Management.
66. Withey, M. J., & Gellatly, I. R. (2015, January). Organizational Structure, Situation
Strength and Employee Commitment: Test of a Process Model. In Academy of Management
Proceedings (Vol. 2015, No. 1, p. 14587). Academy of Management.
78
67. Zaks, Y., & Tsanakas, A. (2014). Optimal capital allocation in a hierarchical corporate
structure. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 56, 48-55.
68. Dess, G. G., & Davis, P. S. (1984). Porter’s (1980) generic strategies as determinants
of strategic group membership and organizational performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 27(3), 467-488.
70. Glazer, R. (1999). Competitive Advantage through Information-Intensive
Strategies. Handbook of Services Marketing and Management, 409.
71. Hussain, S., Khattak, J., Rizwan, A., & Latif, M. A. (2013). ANSOFF matrix,
environment, and growth-an interactive triangle. Management and Administrative Sciences
Review, 2(2), 196-206.
72. Merchant, H. (2014). Configurations of governance structure, generic strategy, and
firm size. Global Strategy Journal, 4(4), 292-309.
73. Miller, D. (1992). The generic strategy trap. Journal of Business Strategy, 13(1), 37-
41.
74. Monahan, M., & Rahman, S. (2011, January). Porter’s Generic Competitive Strategies:
How Appalachian Businesses Use Them to Compete. In Competition Forum (Vol. 9, No. 1, p.
26). American Society for Competitiveness.
75. Ormanidhi, O., & Stringa, O. (2008). Porter’s model of generic competitive
strategies. Business Economics, 43(3), 55-64.
76. Parnell, J. A. (1997). New evidence in the generic strategy and business performance
debate: A research note. British Journal of Management, 8(2), 175-181.
77. Pulaj, E., Kume, V., & Cipi, A. (2015). The impact of generic competitive strategies
on organizational performance. The evidence from Albanian context. European Scientific
Journal, ESJ, 11(28).
78. Tanwar, R. (2013). Porter’s generic competitive strategies. Journal of business and
management, 15(1), 11-17.
79. Varadarajan, P., & Dillon, W. R. (1982). Intensive growth strategies: A closer
examination. Journal of Business Research, 10(4), 503-522.
80. Bahadir, S. C., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Srivastava, R. K. (2015). Marketing mix and brand
sales in global markets: Examining the contingent role of country-market
characteristics. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(5), 596-619.
79
82. Goi, C. L. (2009). A review of marketing mix: 4Ps or more? International Journal of
Marketing Studies, 1(1), 2.
83. Hanssens, D. M., Pauwels, K. H., Srinivasan, S., Vanhuele, M., & Yildirim, G. (2014).
Consumer attitude metrics for guiding marketing mix decisions. Marketing Science, 33(4),
534-550.
84. Steenkamp, J. B. (2017). Global Marketing Mix Decisions: Global Integration, Not
Standardization. In Global Brand Strategy (pp. 75-109). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
86. Van Waterschoot, W., & Van den Bulte, C. (1992). The 4P classification of the
marketing mix revisited. The Journal of Marketing, 83-93.
87. Wood, M. (2008). Applying commercial marketing theory to social marketing: A tale
of 4Ps (and a B). Social Marketing Quarterly, 14(1), 76-85.
88. Yun-sheng, W. (2001). Perfection and innovation of 4P Marketing Mix – How to
evaluate 4P Marketing Mix. Commercial Research, 5, 6.
89. Andriof, J., & McIntosh, M. (2017). Global corporate citizenship in a dot. Com world:
the role of organisational identity. In Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship (pp. 66-82).
Routledge.
90. Carroll, A. B. (1998). The four faces of corporate citizenship. Business and Society
Review, 100(1), 1-7.
91. Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and
sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press.
92. Ditlev-Simonsen, C. D., & Wenstop, F. (2013). How stakeholders view stakeholders
as CSR motivators. Social Responsibility Journal, 9(1), 137-147.
93. Facebook Inc. – An Update to Our Plans to Restrict Data Access on Facebook.
95. Facebook Inc. – Sustainability – Innovating and Sharing What We Learn.
96. House Energy and Commerce Committee (2018). E&C Announces Facebook CEO
Mark Zuckerberg Will Testify April 11th.
97. Miles, M. P., Munilla, L. S., & Darroch, J. (2006). The role of strategic conversations
with stakeholders in the formation of corporate social responsibility strategy. Journal of
Business Ethics, 69(2), 195-205.
80
98. Pater, A., & Van Lierop, K. (2006). Sense and sensitivity: the roles of organisation and
stakeholders in managing corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 15(4), 339-351.
99. Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create
value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 39(1), 117-135.
100. Purnell, N., & Yuniar, R. W. (2015). Things to Know about Facebook’s Internet
Initiative. The Wall Street Journal.
102. Visser, W., & Tolhurst, N. (2017). The world guide to CSR: A country-by-country
analysis of corporate sustainability and responsibility. Routledge.
103. Waddock, S. (2018). Beyond CSR to System Change: Creating a New Socio-economic
Narrative. In Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 377-401). Emerald Publishing Limited.
104. Werther Jr., W. B., & Chandler, D. (2010). Strategic corporate social responsibility:
Stakeholders in a global environment. Sage Publications.
105. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Facebook
81

META Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

META Case Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

META Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contents

Vision and mission statement .................................................................................................... 6

Corporate Mission Statement ................................................................................................. 6

Corporate Vision Statement ................................................................................................... 6

From Facebook to Meta ............................................................................................................. 9

Top 5 companies owned by Meta ............................................................................................ 12

Business model ........................................................................................................................ 16

Core Consumer Benefits .......................................................................................................... 18

Value proposition for marketers and businesses ...................................................................... 19

META's revenue model ........................................................................................................... 22

Promises from Facebook at launch .......................................................................................... 23

Privacy setting concerns .......................................................................................................... 28

SWOT Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 29

Strengths (Internal Strategic Factors) .................................................................................. 29

Weaknesses (Internal Strategic Factors) .............................................................................. 30

Opportunities (External Strategic Factors) .......................................................................... 30

Threats (External Strategic Factors) .................................................................................... 31

Porter’s Five Forces Analysis of Meta Inc. ............................................................................. 33

Competitive Rivalry or Competition with Meta Inc. (Moderate Force) .............................. 33

Bargaining Power of Facebook’s Customers/Buyers (Strong Force) .................................. 34

Bargaining Power of Facebook’s Suppliers (Weak Force).................................................. 34

Threat of Substitutes or Substitution (Strong Force) ........................................................... 35

PESTLE Analysis of Meta ....................................................................................................... 38

Political Factors Affecting Facebook’s Business ................................................................ 38

Economic Factors Important to Meta Inc. ........................................................................... 39

Social/Sociocultural Factors Influencing Facebook’s Business Environment .................... 39

Technological Factors in Facebook’s Business ................................................................... 40

Legal Factors ........................................................................................................................ 41

Operations management of Meta ............................................................................................. 44

10 Decision Areas of OM .................................................................................................... 44

Productivity at Meta Inc....................................................................................................... 48

Meta Inc.’s Organizational Culture.......................................................................................... 49

Advantages & Disadvantages .............................................................................................. 51

Meta Inc.’s Organizational Structure ....................................................................................... 53

Advantages & Disadvantages .............................................................................................. 56

Generic Strategy & Intensive Growth Strategies ..................................................................... 57

Generic Strategy (Porter’s Model) ....................................................................................... 57

Intensive Growth Strategies ................................................................................................. 58

Marketing Mix (4Ps) Analysis ................................................................................................. 60

CSR Initiatives ..................................................................................................................... 64

Meta Inc.’s CSR Performance ............................................................................................. 67

Financial statements ................................................................................................................. 67

Balance sheet ....................................................................................................................... 67

Income statement ................................................................................................................. 69

Cash flow statement ............................................................................................................. 71

Revenue streams .................................................................................................................. 74

1. Give people the power

Corporate Vision Statement

1. Bring the metaverse to life

Initial public offering

Type of Business: Photo and video-sharing app

Acquisition Cost: $1.0 billion

Acquisition Date: April 9, 2012

Type of Business: Mobile messenger service

Acquisition Cost: $19.0 billion

Acquisition Date: February 19, 2014

Type of Business: virtual reality Technology Company

Acquisition Cost: $2.0 billion