4 ms·

Facebook can't be doing well: they're running ads on the New York Times app, trying to convince me to join. And these aren't flattering ads either: they emphas

by ardy42 8y ago

Facebook can't be doing well: they're running ads on the New York Times app, trying to convince me to join. And these aren't flattering ads either: they emphasize that I'd be joining "2 billion users" and that "it's free to sign up." They're bargain basement and have a desperate vibe.

anonytrary 8y ago
I'm a young millennial and I'm sure that I'm suffering from a bias here* -- but I'm actually surprised they would need to take out ads in the NYT, given what their product is. I just find it so hard to believe that a significant number of people in the US haven't heard of Facebook or haven't any close friends who use Facebook. If the number wasn't significant, then I don't know why they would need to take out ads. Unless you've been living under a rock, if you're my age, then you have had more than enough time to figure out whether Facebook is your cup of tea. *I am probably underestimating how many older folks are completely out-of-the-loop with Facebook.
- aggie 8y ago
  Many universally-recognized brands still advertise, because advertising isn't just about mere awareness of a product. It brings the product to mind and can continue to shape perception. The returns on advertising certainly diminish as you saturate awareness, but some level of maintenance is still worth doing.
- orbifold 8y ago
  They ran a full page ad this week in the FAZ the German equivalent of the NYT basically apologizing and promising to follow a new set of values.
  - anonytrary 8y ago
    This week!? I thought they did that a few weeks ago because of Cambridge Analytica? What did they do this time?
- mcbits 8y ago
  It does make some sense considering the ideal user for an ad-supported business: Has money and either isn't savvy enough to block ads or, even better, ethically opposes blocking ads. No offense intended to the previous commenter in particular, but statistically speaking, someone who reads stodgy news without an ad blocker in a subscription app on an expensive phone probably fits the profile. They may have heard of the company but haven't tried it, or they tried it in the past and just need the brand occasionally refreshed in their mind until they try it again.
  - varjag 8y ago
    There's probably zero people in the world who ethically oppose ad blockers and haven't heard about Facebook yet.
    - fastball 8y ago
      I know a couple people that are ethically opposed to ad-blocking and have never bothered to sign up for Facebook.
      - varjag 8y ago
        Huge difference between "never heard of" and "never bothered to subscribe". An ad in NYT is unlikely to win their minds.
        fastball 8y ago
        The comment you replied to had the phrasing: They may have heard of the company but haven't tried it, or they tried it in the past and just need the brand occasionally refreshed in their mind until they try it again. Nobody but you claimed that these people "haven't heard of" Facebook. You seem to be under the false impression that ads are only for people that have never heard of something. That is almost the opposite of the truth.
  - anonytrary 8y ago
    > It does make some sense considering the ideal user for an ad-supported business: Has money and either isn't savvy enough to block ads or, even better, ethically opposes blocking ads. It is concerning that a business model can be dependent on necessary ignorance of the users. Sounds like a bubble waiting to pop.
simonswords82 8y ago
I get that big brands often advertise for pure brand awareness and associated reasons not necessarily tied directly to growth in new users or their bottom line. This makes me wonder what it must be like being a marketing executive for Facebook at the moment. In advertising one usually promotes USPs and benefits to sell the product - in this case - a social media platform. The FB marketing execs must sit there thinking, how the fuck do we sell Facebook when everybody knows about Facebook, and most people know it's garbage? This is especially true when you consider there's 7 billion or so people on the planet, and FB already has 28% of the total population using their app. They surely can't believe that they're one day going to have much more than their current market share? I guess the 'free to sign' up and 'join 2 billion users' was the best they could manage given the circumstances. I'd love to hear from a marketing exec at a big corp to understand their take on it. The idea of having to market Facebook at this stage in their lifecycle is very intriguing to me.
- larkeith 8y ago
  I suspect the most important thing for advertising Facebook at this point is ubiquitous visibility - if there is an FB ad, a share button, or a link to a profile on every page a user visits, it ensures that it is in their subconscious whenever they're browsing, making it that much more likely for them to log in to post or message a fleeting thought that would otherwise have passed forgotten. Similarly, non-users might be momentarily tempted by anything that brings to mind that friend they've not spoken with in years, or that interesting fan group that only has an FB profile, and having links to Facebook omnipresent across the web makes joining that much more likely by reducing the barrier to entry. > ...most people know it's garbage This is likely an exaggeration. While it may be true of the majority of HN readers, HN has a very specific demographic of generally tech- and business-aware people, who are much more exposed to damning data and discussion on the costs of FB - for most users, Facebook is a service somewhere on the scale of "useful" to "essential", with no readily apparent drawbacks; The rather negligible effect of the Cambridge Analytica media outcry serves to demonstrate the average valuation many put on privacy versus convenience. > ...there's 7 billion or so people on the planet, and FB already has 28% of the total population using their app. They surely can't believe that they're one day going to have much more than their current market share? At this point, I'm somewhat surprised FB hasn't started investing in Next Billion technologies; there's a limit to the portion of current smartphone users that are willing to join Facebook, so one solution may be to ensure more people have smartphone access.
beagle3 8y ago
I haven't logged into facebook in 6 months or so, and in the last couple of weeks, I've gotten about 5 emails a day about things my facebook "friends" just posted, and reminders to come back; The usual rate is about 2-3/week. I assumed I wasn't personally targeted, and that it's part of a "increase monthly and daily now!" campaign FB is running. Seems like they had a good reason to try.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > I assumed I wasn't personally targeted, and that it's part of a "increase monthly and daily now!" campaign FB is running. Seems like they had a good reason to try. That kind of manipulative notification behavior has been around a long time. Whenever their algorithm detects you might be drifting off, they send you more and more needy notifications in order to tempt you back. Though, I wouldn't be surprised of they've cranked up the neediness level recently.
puranjay 8y ago
They had TV ads in India. And ads targeted specifically at the rich, English-speaking, Netflix-watching upper-middle class. Meaning they're losing this all-important audience

by ardy42 8y ago

anonytrary 8y ago

I'm a young millennial and I'm sure that I'm suffering from a bias here* -- but I'm actually surprised they would need to take out ads in the NYT, given what their product is. I just find it so hard to believe that a significant number of people in the US haven't heard of Facebook or haven't any close friends who use Facebook. If the number wasn't significant, then I don't know why they would need to take out ads. Unless you've been living under a rock, if you're my age, then you have had more than enough time to figure out whether Facebook is your cup of tea. *I am probably underestimating how many older folks are completely out-of-the-loop with Facebook.

aggie 8y ago
Many universally-recognized brands still advertise, because advertising isn't just about mere awareness of a product. It brings the product to mind and can continue to shape perception. The returns on advertising certainly diminish as you saturate awareness, but some level of maintenance is still worth doing.
orbifold 8y ago
They ran a full page ad this week in the FAZ the German equivalent of the NYT basically apologizing and promising to follow a new set of values.
- anonytrary 8y ago
  This week!? I thought they did that a few weeks ago because of Cambridge Analytica? What did they do this time?
mcbits 8y ago
It does make some sense considering the ideal user for an ad-supported business: Has money and either isn't savvy enough to block ads or, even better, ethically opposes blocking ads. No offense intended to the previous commenter in particular, but statistically speaking, someone who reads stodgy news without an ad blocker in a subscription app on an expensive phone probably fits the profile. They may have heard of the company but haven't tried it, or they tried it in the past and just need the brand occasionally refreshed in their mind until they try it again.
- varjag 8y ago
  There's probably zero people in the world who ethically oppose ad blockers and haven't heard about Facebook yet.
  - fastball 8y ago
    I know a couple people that are ethically opposed to ad-blocking and have never bothered to sign up for Facebook.
    - varjag 8y ago
      Huge difference between "never heard of" and "never bothered to subscribe". An ad in NYT is unlikely to win their minds.
      - fastball 8y ago
        The comment you replied to had the phrasing: They may have heard of the company but haven't tried it, or they tried it in the past and just need the brand occasionally refreshed in their mind until they try it again. Nobody but you claimed that these people "haven't heard of" Facebook. You seem to be under the false impression that ads are only for people that have never heard of something. That is almost the opposite of the truth.
- anonytrary 8y ago
  > It does make some sense considering the ideal user for an ad-supported business: Has money and either isn't savvy enough to block ads or, even better, ethically opposes blocking ads. It is concerning that a business model can be dependent on necessary ignorance of the users. Sounds like a bubble waiting to pop.

simonswords82 8y ago

I get that big brands often advertise for pure brand awareness and associated reasons not necessarily tied directly to growth in new users or their bottom line. This makes me wonder what it must be like being a marketing executive for Facebook at the moment. In advertising one usually promotes USPs and benefits to sell the product - in this case - a social media platform. The FB marketing execs must sit there thinking, how the fuck do we sell Facebook when everybody knows about Facebook, and most people know it's garbage? This is especially true when you consider there's 7 billion or so people on the planet, and FB already has 28% of the total population using their app. They surely can't believe that they're one day going to have much more than their current market share? I guess the 'free to sign' up and 'join 2 billion users' was the best they could manage given the circumstances. I'd love to hear from a marketing exec at a big corp to understand their take on it. The idea of having to market Facebook at this stage in their lifecycle is very intriguing to me.

larkeith 8y ago
I suspect the most important thing for advertising Facebook at this point is ubiquitous visibility - if there is an FB ad, a share button, or a link to a profile on every page a user visits, it ensures that it is in their subconscious whenever they're browsing, making it that much more likely for them to log in to post or message a fleeting thought that would otherwise have passed forgotten. Similarly, non-users might be momentarily tempted by anything that brings to mind that friend they've not spoken with in years, or that interesting fan group that only has an FB profile, and having links to Facebook omnipresent across the web makes joining that much more likely by reducing the barrier to entry. > ...most people know it's garbage This is likely an exaggeration. While it may be true of the majority of HN readers, HN has a very specific demographic of generally tech- and business-aware people, who are much more exposed to damning data and discussion on the costs of FB - for most users, Facebook is a service somewhere on the scale of "useful" to "essential", with no readily apparent drawbacks; The rather negligible effect of the Cambridge Analytica media outcry serves to demonstrate the average valuation many put on privacy versus convenience. > ...there's 7 billion or so people on the planet, and FB already has 28% of the total population using their app. They surely can't believe that they're one day going to have much more than their current market share? At this point, I'm somewhat surprised FB hasn't started investing in Next Billion technologies; there's a limit to the portion of current smartphone users that are willing to join Facebook, so one solution may be to ensure more people have smartphone access.

beagle3 8y ago

I haven't logged into facebook in 6 months or so, and in the last couple of weeks, I've gotten about 5 emails a day about things my facebook "friends" just posted, and reminders to come back; The usual rate is about 2-3/week. I assumed I wasn't personally targeted, and that it's part of a "increase monthly and daily now!" campaign FB is running. Seems like they had a good reason to try.

ardy42 8y ago
> I assumed I wasn't personally targeted, and that it's part of a "increase monthly and daily now!" campaign FB is running. Seems like they had a good reason to try. That kind of manipulative notification behavior has been around a long time. Whenever their algorithm detects you might be drifting off, they send you more and more needy notifications in order to tempt you back. Though, I wouldn't be surprised of they've cranked up the neediness level recently.

puranjay 8y ago

They had TV ads in India. And ads targeted specifically at the rich, English-speaking, Netflix-watching upper-middle class. Meaning they're losing this all-important audience