5 ms·

FB continues to promote the self-serving fallacy that users really, really want ads. According to FB, users just desparately want those ads to be highly target

FB continues to promote the self-serving fallacy that users really, really want ads. According to FB, users just desparately want those ads to be highly targeted and relevant. And, that's awesome, because it just happens to correspond exactly with what advertisers want. Most amazing is that advertisers continue to believe it. Testament to the power of desparation and wishful thinking.

magic_man 11y ago
No one really wants ads, but people do want facebook for free.
- ams6110 11y ago
  In other words, they only want facebook because it's free?
  - Spivak 11y ago
    If Facebook charged money to the end user it would be immediately abandoned. It's weird that such a large service has such a low value to users. Most other huge free services could charge end users and get away with it but FBs value is tied to the fact that it's free and accessible by anyone.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  Of course. But, that's not exactly the pitch they sell to their advertisers is it?
bryanrasmussen 11y ago
actually I want ads that are really relevant. I sometimes get them in Gmail, most of the time not though. Don't like or use Facebook. I remember I had a talk with a coworker once and we talked about if the ad was good enough to give you what you really wanted to buy when you searched and he thought it should be the first result, which I don't agree with because of course what is most helpful to me at some point might not be what I want to buy in relation to the search but something else. But definitely the thing I want to buy should be presented to me when I want to buy it so that I can buy it with the least amount of fuss. But unfortunately that is not what I get.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  >actually I want ads that are really relevant. I sometimes get them in Gmail, most of the time not though I would suggest that you simply appreciate the occasional ad that happens to be relevant, especially given that most aren't (as you noted). But that is a far cry from really wanting to be inundated with or demanding ads, relevant or not.
  - bryanrasmussen 11y ago
    I suppose that it is true that I do not want to be inundated with relevant ads, but I wonder if you can actually be inundated with relevance. Relevance acts as a filter after all. But do I want relevant ads, yes, although I would also like this to be interspersed with other relevant things. If an engine could determine that the most relevant thing for me at the moment is something educational on a subject then it should give me this, if an ad it should give me an ad. As an example I recently bought a rabbit for my daughter, there's a bunch of relevant information on rabbits I need to know about, as well as things it would be useful for me to buy. In order for me to determine what I need to buy I need to do research to determine what is the best solution for my needs at the moment. Really relevant ads would give me a very close match to what I need, and explain to me why I needed it. Trusting the relevant ad vendor I would not have to spend time on research and could go directly to purchase. This is of the course the dream, a dream unavailable with today's technology but inching closer. I would like it if it were here. Of course the problem is this kind of relevance would carry with it side effects that I might not like so much.
    - unclebucknasty 11y ago
      Oh, I think it's possible to be inundated with virtually anything, including relevance. Yes, I may find a product relevant, but there is some threshhold past which I'd be sick of having it pitched to me. Retargeting is a perfect example of how a relevance beatdown can occur. Yes, I put those shoes in my cart because I was genuinely interested in them. But, I don't need to see them popping up on every site I visit thereafter for a week. Neither do I need to keep seeing the Softlayer Cloud ads, etc. It's a turnoff to be hounded like this, and even distasteful at a certain point. To your point, though, perhaps part of the problem is the current ad formats.
dexterdog 11y ago
Well Facebook brings in about $50/year per user in revenue. If the alternative is to pay $50/year to keep the ads and tracking off for your account will that many people really pay that? They would have to charge more than that as well because once they let people opt out the rest of the data loses value for not being complete.
- fwn 11y ago
  Since the group of users that would consider paying a yearly fee is also the most valuable group to advertisers, the devaluation might end up being very drastical.
  - dexterdog 11y ago
    So then they have to have tiered pricing so that the occasional user pays very little (or nothing) and the people who want to have Farmville and pokes and all of the other nonsense that lets you live your life on FB will pay something more substantial.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  >If the alternative is to pay $50/year to keep the ads and tracking off for your account will that many people really pay that? But, of course, that doesn't mean they want ads. The reality is that they want neither. Your comment points to exactly the fallacy I referenced: this idea they peddle to advertisers that people want relevant ads. No, they will stomach ads if they must, because it's the lesser of evils.

magic_man 11y ago

No one really wants ads, but people do want facebook for free.

ams6110 11y ago
In other words, they only want facebook because it's free?
- Spivak 11y ago
  If Facebook charged money to the end user it would be immediately abandoned. It's weird that such a large service has such a low value to users. Most other huge free services could charge end users and get away with it but FBs value is tied to the fact that it's free and accessible by anyone.
unclebucknasty 11y ago
Of course. But, that's not exactly the pitch they sell to their advertisers is it?

bryanrasmussen 11y ago

actually I want ads that are really relevant. I sometimes get them in Gmail, most of the time not though. Don't like or use Facebook. I remember I had a talk with a coworker once and we talked about if the ad was good enough to give you what you really wanted to buy when you searched and he thought it should be the first result, which I don't agree with because of course what is most helpful to me at some point might not be what I want to buy in relation to the search but something else. But definitely the thing I want to buy should be presented to me when I want to buy it so that I can buy it with the least amount of fuss. But unfortunately that is not what I get.

unclebucknasty 11y ago
>actually I want ads that are really relevant. I sometimes get them in Gmail, most of the time not though I would suggest that you simply appreciate the occasional ad that happens to be relevant, especially given that most aren't (as you noted). But that is a far cry from really wanting to be inundated with or demanding ads, relevant or not.
- bryanrasmussen 11y ago
  I suppose that it is true that I do not want to be inundated with relevant ads, but I wonder if you can actually be inundated with relevance. Relevance acts as a filter after all. But do I want relevant ads, yes, although I would also like this to be interspersed with other relevant things. If an engine could determine that the most relevant thing for me at the moment is something educational on a subject then it should give me this, if an ad it should give me an ad. As an example I recently bought a rabbit for my daughter, there's a bunch of relevant information on rabbits I need to know about, as well as things it would be useful for me to buy. In order for me to determine what I need to buy I need to do research to determine what is the best solution for my needs at the moment. Really relevant ads would give me a very close match to what I need, and explain to me why I needed it. Trusting the relevant ad vendor I would not have to spend time on research and could go directly to purchase. This is of the course the dream, a dream unavailable with today's technology but inching closer. I would like it if it were here. Of course the problem is this kind of relevance would carry with it side effects that I might not like so much.
  - unclebucknasty 11y ago
    Oh, I think it's possible to be inundated with virtually anything, including relevance. Yes, I may find a product relevant, but there is some threshhold past which I'd be sick of having it pitched to me. Retargeting is a perfect example of how a relevance beatdown can occur. Yes, I put those shoes in my cart because I was genuinely interested in them. But, I don't need to see them popping up on every site I visit thereafter for a week. Neither do I need to keep seeing the Softlayer Cloud ads, etc. It's a turnoff to be hounded like this, and even distasteful at a certain point. To your point, though, perhaps part of the problem is the current ad formats.

dexterdog 11y ago

Well Facebook brings in about $50/year per user in revenue. If the alternative is to pay $50/year to keep the ads and tracking off for your account will that many people really pay that? They would have to charge more than that as well because once they let people opt out the rest of the data loses value for not being complete.

fwn 11y ago
Since the group of users that would consider paying a yearly fee is also the most valuable group to advertisers, the devaluation might end up being very drastical.
- dexterdog 11y ago
  So then they have to have tiered pricing so that the occasional user pays very little (or nothing) and the people who want to have Farmville and pokes and all of the other nonsense that lets you live your life on FB will pay something more substantial.
unclebucknasty 11y ago
>If the alternative is to pay $50/year to keep the ads and tracking off for your account will that many people really pay that? But, of course, that doesn't mean they want ads. The reality is that they want neither. Your comment points to exactly the fallacy I referenced: this idea they peddle to advertisers that people want relevant ads. No, they will stomach ads if they must, because it's the lesser of evils.