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.

This publication-based dissertation examines (corporate) venturing and business model innovation intending to derive implications for entrepreneurial management in firms. To achieve this, four self-contained research papers have been developed which are the core of this dissertation. The first section serves as a general introduction, outlines the motivation for each of the research topics, and presents a summary of the research papers and their publication status. The first research paper (Section 2) is a systematic literature review that summarizes and structures three decades of research on the field of success measurement of corporate venturing activities. It identifies three structural dimensions which allow the creation of nine meaning clusters by which the existing measurement approaches can be grouped and compared. Additionally, the review reveals the heterogeneity of these approaches and the unique measurement items which they include. The third section is an empirical study on new venture creation activities in the early stage, based on 112 interviews with novice and experienced entrepreneurs. It defines three dimensions of entrepreneurial activity, namely, Entrepreneurial Alignment, Resource Enhancement, and Value Generation, and finds 67 actions, which differ across these groups in type and sequence. Section four is a single case study in business model innovation that investigates the recent rebranding of “Facebook” to “Meta”. It finds that, despite the strong communication efforts and the resulting internal and external signaling effects, this change does not correspond to a radical business innovation pattern. The fourth research study (Section 5) is a conceptual study that develops an integrated framework for business model innovation in service industries, based on research on the tourism industry. It highlights the limitations of siloed approaches under the influence of internal and external challenges such as industry dynamics and resource constraints. Section six summarizes the dissertation, highlighting the overall contributions for research and practice, and discusses the limitations and directions for future research.