Chris Anderson, a writer at Wired Magazine and author of the influential The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More, makes some good points about the insanity of Facebook’s $15 billion valuation, the inadequacy of current approaches to social networking, and the implications of an over-reliance on advertising as a business model. His arguments are useful because entrepreneurs can use them to make concrete business or strategic decisions. He doesn’t use namby pamby qualifications to hedge his bets and predictions. I do have a huge doubt about Anderson’s conclusions though.

First, Anderson argues that social networking should be a feature, not a destination. I agree wholeheartedly. The ability to interact with friends, share content, and engage in self-expression should be standard features on most websites. The unique methods of encouraging creative online behaviors known as Web 2.0 will filter through the rest of the Internet and, soon, your grandfather’s favorite website will allow him to engage in “social networking.”

Second, Anderson cites stats regarding advertising revenues or costs from Myspace (NWS-A), Facebook, and Ning. He shows that monolithic social networks like Myspace and Facebook, which attempt to be all things to all people, are having immense struggles with selling advertising at worthwhile rates. He also implies that Ning’s niche vertical social networks built by customers command higher advertising rates. Some marketers happily pay the higher rates because the engagement level is greater on these niche vertical networks. Advertisers also prefer the more intelligent targeting of relevant audiences. Myspace, Facebook, Bebo (TWX), and other undifferentiated mass networks are actively trying to improve their targeting abilities so it will be interesting to watch this competition evolve.

Finally, Anderson asks a pointed question about Facebook’s implied $15 billion valuation when Microsoft (MSFT) bought a small percentage of the company a few months ago. If Facebook is struggling to target its advertising and improve its advertising revenues, does its gargantuan valuation make sense? I think Zuckerberg should take the money and run. I also think that Lee Lorenzen, a venture capitalist, and his prediction that Facebook is worth $100 billion is a case of shrewd exaggeration. What I think is most funny is the fact that all of Lorenzen’s fanboys, the self-branded “social app gurus” and developers of tiny Facebook apps are all eagerly drinking the spiked punch. There are few better examples of confirmation bias in action.

My main problem with Anderson’s analysis is his implied assumption that the currently high advertising rates the niche vertical social networks enjoy will stay relatively high. Based on his personal experience, he concludes that Ning’s advertising rates are greater than Facebook’s and Myspace by at least a factor of ten. I don’t think this will last. Web 2.0 methods are precisely that, methods. They can be products, but they are also methods or general, conceptual best practices. As such, the ability to create robust social networks for different verticals will diffuse to a critical mass of software engineers. As that process accelerates, social networks and features of social networking will become commonplace or commoditized. I’ve alluded to the commoditization of social networking applications, which is a related problem. When this process nears its peak, advertising rates for all social networks will have diminished drastically. Self-proclaimed “social app gurus” and “social network gurus” who have staked their futures on social networking will ultimately prove themselves as less than prudent.