4 ms·
While this is a good move for Facebook's users, who will get a less cluttered feed, it's a disaster for publishers who use Facebook for content distribution. Fo
by sparkzilla 9y ago
While this is a good move for Facebook's users, who will get a less cluttered feed, it's a disaster for publishers who use Facebook for content distribution. For example, over the past year my company has been supplying news to a network of two million MMA fans on Facebook. With this change it's very difficult to make enough revenue to continue: less reach = less clickthrough to our site = less revenue. The silver lining is that if publishers write off Facebook as a distribution method then perhaps they can work more on other distribution methods, generating some innovation.
<insert reply about platform dependency here>
- miskin 9y agoYes, dependency is bad, but you target platform where your customers are. We operate small indoor playground for kids. Sure, I wanted to have website, but since almost all moms with small kids are on FB 24/7, Facebook Page was obvious choice. Yes, it makes us platform dependent, but I won't expect our target audience to play with RSS... Now this step bite us in the backside a bit. It really sucks to be in the bad part of A/B test :)