A few years ago, Facebook used to restrict user signups with .edu emails only. Why did they remove that restriction and what were the pros & cons of doing so?

I understand the task and will provide a detailed, strategic answer to the question about Facebook's decision to remove the .edu email restriction for user signups. I'll structure my response as if I'm directly addressing the interviewer, using a first-person perspective and demonstrating deep product thinking and leadership. I'll follow the outlined format and instructions, including the use of specific syntax for callouts, steps, and bullet points. Here's my response:

Introduction

The strategic problem at hand is understanding Facebook's decision to remove the .edu email restriction for user signups, which was initially a key feature of the platform. This decision was crucial for Facebook's growth and market expansion strategy. In addressing this question, I'll analyze the pros and cons of this move, considering its impact on user acquisition, network effects, and overall business objectives.

My response will cover the following strategic steps:

1. Clarify the strategic goals
2. Analyze the market and competitive landscape
3. Define the product vision and roadmap
4. Prioritize strategic initiatives
5. Outline the execution plan and resource allocation
6. Establish metrics and key performance indicators
7. Manage risks and develop contingency plans

Step 1

Clarify the Strategic Goals (3-4 minutes)

• Based on Facebook's initial focus on college students, I'm assuming the original .edu restriction was tied to creating a niche, exclusive community. Could you confirm if this exclusivity was indeed a key part of Facebook's initial value proposition?

Why it matters: Determines if we need to preserve any aspects of exclusivity in the expansion strategy Expected answer: Yes, exclusivity was initially important for creating a trusted network Impact on approach: Would influence how we balance rapid growth with maintaining user trust and quality interactions

• Looking at Facebook's position in the social media landscape at the time of this decision, I'm sensing this was a critical growth inflection point. Can you provide any context on Facebook's market share or user base size when this decision was being considered?

Why it matters: Helps quantify the potential market expansion opportunity Expected answer: Facebook had a significant but not dominant market share, with room for exponential growth Impact on approach: Would inform the aggressiveness of the expansion strategy and resource allocation

• Considering the competitive landscape, I'm curious about the pressure from other social networks. Were there specific competitors or market trends that influenced the timing of this decision?

Why it matters: Identifies external factors driving the need for change Expected answer: Growing competition from more open networks like MySpace Impact on approach: Would shape our competitive positioning and differentiation strategy

Based on these assumptions, it appears that Facebook was at a critical juncture, needing to balance its initial value proposition of exclusivity with the immense growth potential of opening up the platform to a broader audience.