Purpose In a move characterized by ambiguity, Facebook changed its name to Meta in October 2021, announcing a new era of social interaction, enabled by the metaverse technology that appears poised to become the future center of gravity for online social interactions. At first glance, the communicated change signals a radically new business model (BM) based on an unprecedented configuration of the three following components: value creation, value proposition and value capture. The purpose of this paper is to analyze Facebook’s announced changes in its BM to clarify whether the change is as radical as communicated or rather represents an incremental transformation of the current BM.Design/methodology/approach This investigation adopted an in-depth case study research method. The process included using a structured approach to collect 153 data points, including academic studies and publicly available information, followed by qualitative content analysis.Findings The results of our analysis of Facebook’s entrepreneurial journey indicate that the communicated strategic refocusing does not correspond to a radical BM innovation pattern. Even though Facebook’s BM might evolve into the innovation phase, as the current changes appear very futuristic, the authors estimate that the core elements of the BM will change incrementally. The investigation indicates that the underlying logic of the straightforward communicative efforts primarily serves two purposes: to improve the external perception of the company and to disseminate an internal change signal within the organization.Originality/value This paper is the first study that takes an entrepreneurship and BM perspective in analyzing Facebook’s approach in rebranding to Meta and refocusing its strategy on building the metaverse. The academic and practical relevance, as well as the potential future impact on business and society, makes the investigation of this case an intriguing prospect. Additionally, the study illuminates the difference between the communicated vision and the real impact on the business, suggesting critical questions about future large-scale rebranding efforts and their effects.

No abstract

Purpose Facing increased asset prices and growing competition, private equity firms needed to innovate their established business model and shift from focusing on financial engineering to creating operating value. Yet, the authors understand little about how private equity firms increase the value of companies in their portfolios. This paper aims to shed light on organizational strategies, activities and governance principles that private equity firms use to create value. Design/methodology/approach This investigation combines several qualitative research approaches. Using in-depth interviews with executives in 35 private equity firms, the authors define industry-specific design principles for value creation using a Gioia methodology. They then use the Eisenhardt methodology to make in-depth case comparisons among sample firms. Findings Private equity firms employ one of four strategies – labeled “Infiltrator,” “Consultant,” “Organizer” or “Investor” – to create value in portfolio companies, each with a different organizational structure, level of cooperation between investor and portfolio firm and specific configuration of design elements. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to focus on private equity value creation strategies from an organizational perspective. To their knowledge, no other publication has tapped this deeply into the interface between the private equity firm and the portfolio company to define the exact approach taken by the firm. This study contributes to the emerging discussion around the nonfinancial inputs to value creation. In addition, this qualitative research design is underrepresented in private equity research.

No abstract