4 ms·
>, Facebook gets to monetise them, but they see none of that money. But "Facebook gets to monetise them" because that's what FunnyOrDie signed up for. Let's e
by jasode 9y ago
>, Facebook gets to monetise them, but they see none of that money.
But "Facebook gets to monetise them" because that's what FunnyOrDie signed up for. Let's emphasize that again:
FunnyOrDie already knew that was the bargain when they submitted their content to Facebook. They knew that Facebook does not have direct web links back to their own url: www.funnyordie.com.
Apparently, they were ok with those disadvantages because they hoped to build enough "brand awareness" or "content loyalty" from viewers that FunnyOrDie could transcend the Facebook platform and attract viewers on their own. But that didn't happen.
If the CEO knew the new rules of Facebook's walled garden around publishers and wasn't tricked at the time he put his content on Facebook, it seems intellectually dishonest to complain when the exposure on Facebook "also known as marketing" didn't lead to the results he wanted.
If indeed Facebook did trick the CEO, then he should write about that as a public service warning to all of us. That's newsworthy. On the other hand, if he tried to use Facebook as a strategic marketing tool and it didn't lead to increased views+revenue on his own website, that's really on him and not Facebook. I'd guess most of HN readers without having an MBA degree already know that submitting original content to Facebook is a lopsided business bargain with very little chance of upside.
- Joeboy 9y ago> that's what FunnyOrDie signed up for The choice they had was "monetize your content on Facebook or watch other people monetize your content on Facebook".
- lmm 9y agoThey could've got their content taken off Facebook. If Facebook was systematically allowing other people to post their content, they could've pursued that legally - there's a reason Youtube ended up with its ContentID stuff.
- Joeboy 9y agoYes, with sufficient investment they could eventually have got their content taken off Facebook, after most of the revenue had been given to other people.
- jasode 9y ago>, with sufficient investment But FunnyOrDie isn't a helpless college kid trying to monetize his home recordings of "iPhone unboxing" videos. They're a content business that got at least $18 million of VC money and bringing ~$40 million in revenue.[1] Therefore, the executives should have financial sophistication of how Facebook deals will or won't work in their favor. >, after most of the revenue had been given to other people. But why would other freebooters get the ad revenue and not FunnyOrDie? FOD is already paying money to Facebook for $0 ad revenue share just to send videos to users who follow them. If pirates pay nothing to upload and monetize FOD videos, why can't FOD just "pirate" <wink><wink> their own videos and get the same ad revenue? In 2014, they had 20 million users per month on their own funnyordie.com website and ~5 million "likes" on Facebook. Yet somehow Facebook is the reason they had to lay off people? Something doesn't add up. [1] https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/15/how-does-funny-or-die-make-money.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/15/how-does-f...
- x0x0 9y agoLook how far Viacom got suing youtube for copyright violations. I wouldn't be surprised if Viacom put on the order of $50 million dollars or more into that series of lawsuits. But sure, FunnyOrDie could definitely compel Facebook to take down their videos...
- lmm 9y ago> If indeed Facebook did trick the CEO, then he should write about that as a public service warning to all of us. That's newsworthy. Facebook did legitimately trick many of its clients with the "content from pages with more likes appears higher in users' news feed, if you want your content higher in the feed then advertise with us for more likes" / "lots of pages with many likes have low user engagement, we're rearranging the feed to prioritise content shared by family and friends" bait-and-switch.