Rebuilding Bebo: Shaan Puri reveals his plans for the social network

"The biggest lesson is that the social products that succeed are non-obvious"

Last month, Michael Birch, the founder of the once-popular social networking site Bebo, reacquired the platform for a fraction of the price he sold it for in 2008. 

Besides releasing a tongue-in-cheek video previewing the relaunch of the network, the company have been reluctant to release details about its ongoing development.

I caught up with Bebo's new CEO, Shaan Puri. 

The network is currently being promoted through a self-deprecating satire of a corporate video. What was the thinking behind this?

It took a series of simple decisions:

Firstly to decide not to be boring. Most companies just put up a text landing page with a paragraph that says "sorry...blah blah...coming soon."

Secondly to decide to be honest. I hate when brands try to make a 'cool comeback' when they haven't been relevant in years. You can't throw money at the problem, hire celebrities and run fancy advertisements. People are too smart to be fooled. We are going to refresh the brand now that it's back in the hands of its original founders, but before you can move forward, you must acknowledge the present first. It was a risk, but so far the reaction has been tremendous. People like that we chose to do something funny, honest and self-deprecating.

A brand is an embodiment of the people behind it. Michael and I like to joke around, and don't take things too seriously. So for us, doing a spoof corporate video sounded like fun.

The new Bebo is launching initially as mobile-only. Why?

The concept we have for the new Bebo really works as a mobile app. This is fortunate, because the idea we are excited about for the new Bebo fits into a huge trend right now of people being connected via smartphones.

The social networking landscape is so changeable and unpredictable. Bebo's rise and fall epitomizes this. Why do big companies still invest so willingly?

I think there are two reasons:

1. Its really unlikely that a large company built around a completely different type of business model would ever internally create a social product that wins over the masses. Big companies find it hard to innovate outside of their core product. Yahoo would never be able to create Tumblr from scratch. Even Google has struggled to do it with Google+.

2. Social networks grow fast, and have incredible network effects. Even companies that understand 'social', such as Facebook, find it hard to compete with the Snapchats and Instagrams of the world. Once the big companies notice a startup is worth copying, the startup has built up too much velocity with its viral growth to be stopped.

What lessons have you learnt from the mistakes of other social networks?

Good question. I think the biggest lesson is that the social products that succeed are non-obvious. They sound silly, or like toys at first. Facebook, Twitter, and most recently, Snapchat. Next thing you know, they've disrupted everything.

There has been a lot of press recently about harassment on social networking sites. How should they police their communities?

Like any community, it starts with the people you attract, and the value system they are buying into when they join the site. Luckily, Michael has unique experience in growing a social network from just a few users to many millions, and is familiar with the challenges of managing a community through each phase of growth.

What has presented the greatest challenge in the development of the new Bebo?

We are doing two things at once, which is always tricky. On one hand, we're rebuilding the image of Bebo, and at the same time, we're building the actual product. Both need to be done very well for us to succeed.

Bebo. Photograph: Getty Images

James is a freelance journalist with a particular interest in UK politics and social commentary. His blog can be found hereYou can follow him on Twitter @jamesevans42.

Getty
Show Hide image

There's nothing Luddite about banning zero-hours contracts

The TUC general secretary responds to the Taylor Review. 

Unions have been criticised over the past week for our lukewarm response to the Taylor Review. According to the report’s author we were wrong to expect “quick fixes”, when “gradual change” is the order of the day. “Why aren’t you celebrating the new ‘flexibility’ the gig economy has unleashed?” others have complained.

Our response to these arguments is clear. Unions are not Luddites, and we recognise that the world of work is changing. But to understand these changes, we need to recognise that we’ve seen shifts in the balance of power in the workplace that go well beyond the replacement of a paper schedule with an app.

Years of attacks on trade unions have reduced workers’ bargaining power. This is key to understanding today’s world of work. Economic theory says that the near full employment rates should enable workers to ask for higher pay – but we’re still in the middle of the longest pay squeeze for 150 years.

And while fears of mass unemployment didn’t materialise after the economic crisis, we saw working people increasingly forced to accept jobs with less security, be it zero-hours contracts, agency work, or low-paid self-employment.

The key test for us is not whether new laws respond to new technology. It’s whether they harness it to make the world of work better, and give working people the confidence they need to negotiate better rights.

Don’t get me wrong. Matthew Taylor’s review is not without merit. We support his call for the abolishment of the Swedish Derogation – a loophole that has allowed employers to get away with paying agency workers less, even when they are doing the same job as their permanent colleagues.

Guaranteeing all workers the right to sick pay would make a real difference, as would asking employers to pay a higher rate for non-contracted hours. Payment for when shifts are cancelled at the last minute, as is now increasingly the case in the United States, was a key ask in our submission to the review.

But where the report falls short is not taking power seriously. 

The proposed new "dependent contractor status" carries real risks of downgrading people’s ability to receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Here new technology isn’t creating new risks – it’s exacerbating old ones that we have fought to eradicate.

It’s no surprise that we are nervous about the return of "piece rates" or payment for tasks completed, rather than hours worked. Our experience of these has been in sectors like contract cleaning and hotels, where they’re used to set unreasonable targets, and drive down pay. Forgive us for being sceptical about Uber’s record of following the letter of the law.

Taylor’s proposals on zero-hours contracts also miss the point. Those on zero hours contracts – working in low paid sectors like hospitality, caring, and retail - are dependent on their boss for the hours they need to pay their bills. A "right to request" guaranteed hours from an exploitative boss is no right at all for many workers. Those in insecure jobs are in constant fear of having their hours cut if they speak up at work. Will the "right to request" really change this?

Tilting the balance of power back towards workers is what the trade union movement exists for. But it’s also vital to delivering the better productivity and growth Britain so sorely needs.

There is plenty of evidence from across the UK and the wider world that workplaces with good terms and conditions, pay and worker voice are more productive. That’s why the OECD (hardly a left-wing mouth piece) has called for a new debate about how collective bargaining can deliver more equality, more inclusion and better jobs all round.

We know as a union movement that we have to up our game. And part of that thinking must include how trade unions can take advantage of new technologies to organise workers.

We are ready for this challenge. Our role isn’t to stop changes in technology. It’s to make sure technology is used to make working people’s lives better, and to make sure any gains are fairly shared.

Frances O'Grady is the General Secretary of the TUC.