5 ms·

The research here is amazingly flawed. They ASKED users what they wanted. If you've every done anything with behavioral analysis online you'll quickly learn t

The research here is amazingly flawed. They ASKED users what they wanted. If you've every done anything with behavioral analysis online you'll quickly learn that users say they want one thing and then often behave the exact opposite. First. If you ask users if they would use a site that has ads, the percentage that say they don't want ads (which is probably a majority) are also the same ones that won't pay for the site. This is a demonstration of consumer irrationality. It's usually either A or B.. not neither A nor B. There are basically three main revenue models online: 1. ads. 2. paid content. 3. you're the product. Now #3 might not ALWAYS be bad. Duolingo for example can use the feedback they get from users using the app to improve the service and some users DO pay to remove the ads. When you're using it in a freemium capacity you're actually paying to help train Duolingo. With Facebook they're mostly #3... A better way to do this would be behavioral analysis. The first is to find out if consumers want ads or would they rather pay for a service directly. The answer is overwhelmingly in favor of them NOT paying directly. They would rather be the product or see ads. Don't believe me? Do you see any social networks that charge money? There are some somewhat freemium platforms like Wordpress (which still has ads) but for the most part the vast majority of the revenue online does not come directly from consumers. Now... do users want customized ads? Again. The data is overwhelming here. Between two ads, one tailored to the user , and another random ad, the more targeted it is the greater conversion rate.

bsanr2 8y ago
That only proves that users click on tailored ads, not that they necessarily want them. Perhaps many users would rather ads be unrelated to their interests, so that they would be easier to ignore. Perhaps there is an unwanted psychological burden associated with going to a website for a specific purpose, and being distracted by something that is somewhat related to their general interests, such that it becomes more difficult to use that website purposefully. So consumers want a free lunch. It may not be logical from a site owner's perspective, but it makes sense to consumers.
- burtonator 8y ago
  > So consumers want a free lunch. It may not be logical from a site owner's perspective, but it makes sense to consumers. Note that users never visit websites that don't exist. Websites that run ads actually exist and are profitable. By visiting the sites they're admitting that this is what they "want" ... It's a weird definition of "want" but consumers are being irrational. They say they don't want ads but they constantly go to sites that offer ads. If you ask them do they want Facebook spying on them they say no yet the line up to give their data to companies that are spying on them. Also, between two ads, if the user does click on an ad they click on the better targeted ad. So by definition they like targeted ads.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    I visit the movie theatre but I don't 'want' to slog through a cold parking lot or jockey at the popcorn stand for my slushy. We want the sites that offer the info we seek. Ads come and go, and when they get obnoxious we complain. Of course we do.
stuntkite 8y ago
I think culturally facebook could never make the transition with any sort of customer confidence, but I really think they could offer a paid facebook with no ads and more transparency on the data. People would pay $10 a month for that. I mean, slanging user data and social manipulation tooling to any guy with a stack of cash is probably way more lucrative, but a move like that would even sway me a bit to wonder if they could turn around into something that isn't cancer.
- burtonator 8y ago
  The issue is that a paid Facebook wouldn't make any money. This wouldn't even impact the bottom line. Services like Evernote have < 5% of the userbase paying.
  - stuntkite 8y ago
    I think "wouldn't make any money" isn't true. They could keep offering the current product but offer one for people who wanted to pay. Like I said, I think this would be less lucrative than their current platform, but it would demonstrate that they have an idea to "disrupt" their own business model with something that resembles morals or actual innovation. It won't happen and they'll keep shifting and never be able to keep up with their expected growth as people abandon them over the next 10 years. I'm pretty sure they don't care and the point of their platform is international psyops and piles of gross data bucks.... It is possible that they could find a soul and do something interesting instead of predictable and lame.
    - chillacy 8y ago
      In theory if you outbid all the advertisers you could more or less achieve this. But I’ve read some reports saying that users are worth on average something like 50 bucks a quarter, and have users would be worth way more, so it would be pricey.
      - stuntkite 8y ago
        Or make less money and produce a platform that isn't exploitative. Whatever. Seems reasonable. It'll all eat itself anyway, it'll be fun to watch.
anoncake 8y ago
> If you've every done anything with behavioral analysis online you'll quickly learn that users say they want one thing and then often behave the exact opposite. Then people don't do what they want. Because they're weak-willed and/or being manipulated. If you give someone cake and they eat it, does that indicate that they want to be fat?
- chillacy 8y ago
  It’s always so difficult to discuss issues like this due to a limitation of English. In particular the words “they” and “want” are far too ambiguous.
inopinatus 8y ago
This is only good news for sociopaths looking for ways to engineer more effective reinforcement disorders on a civilisational scale. Key takeaway: don't be proud of hijacking consumer irrationality.

bsanr2 8y ago

That only proves that users click on tailored ads, not that they necessarily want them. Perhaps many users would rather ads be unrelated to their interests, so that they would be easier to ignore. Perhaps there is an unwanted psychological burden associated with going to a website for a specific purpose, and being distracted by something that is somewhat related to their general interests, such that it becomes more difficult to use that website purposefully. So consumers want a free lunch. It may not be logical from a site owner's perspective, but it makes sense to consumers.

burtonator 8y ago
> So consumers want a free lunch. It may not be logical from a site owner's perspective, but it makes sense to consumers. Note that users never visit websites that don't exist. Websites that run ads actually exist and are profitable. By visiting the sites they're admitting that this is what they "want" ... It's a weird definition of "want" but consumers are being irrational. They say they don't want ads but they constantly go to sites that offer ads. If you ask them do they want Facebook spying on them they say no yet the line up to give their data to companies that are spying on them. Also, between two ads, if the user does click on an ad they click on the better targeted ad. So by definition they like targeted ads.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  I visit the movie theatre but I don't 'want' to slog through a cold parking lot or jockey at the popcorn stand for my slushy. We want the sites that offer the info we seek. Ads come and go, and when they get obnoxious we complain. Of course we do.

stuntkite 8y ago

I think culturally facebook could never make the transition with any sort of customer confidence, but I really think they could offer a paid facebook with no ads and more transparency on the data. People would pay $10 a month for that. I mean, slanging user data and social manipulation tooling to any guy with a stack of cash is probably way more lucrative, but a move like that would even sway me a bit to wonder if they could turn around into something that isn't cancer.

burtonator 8y ago
The issue is that a paid Facebook wouldn't make any money. This wouldn't even impact the bottom line. Services like Evernote have < 5% of the userbase paying.
- stuntkite 8y ago
  I think "wouldn't make any money" isn't true. They could keep offering the current product but offer one for people who wanted to pay. Like I said, I think this would be less lucrative than their current platform, but it would demonstrate that they have an idea to "disrupt" their own business model with something that resembles morals or actual innovation. It won't happen and they'll keep shifting and never be able to keep up with their expected growth as people abandon them over the next 10 years. I'm pretty sure they don't care and the point of their platform is international psyops and piles of gross data bucks.... It is possible that they could find a soul and do something interesting instead of predictable and lame.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    In theory if you outbid all the advertisers you could more or less achieve this. But I’ve read some reports saying that users are worth on average something like 50 bucks a quarter, and have users would be worth way more, so it would be pricey.
    - stuntkite 8y ago
      Or make less money and produce a platform that isn't exploitative. Whatever. Seems reasonable. It'll all eat itself anyway, it'll be fun to watch.

anoncake 8y ago

> If you've every done anything with behavioral analysis online you'll quickly learn that users say they want one thing and then often behave the exact opposite. Then people don't do what they want. Because they're weak-willed and/or being manipulated. If you give someone cake and they eat it, does that indicate that they want to be fat?

chillacy 8y ago
It’s always so difficult to discuss issues like this due to a limitation of English. In particular the words “they” and “want” are far too ambiguous.

inopinatus 8y ago

This is only good news for sociopaths looking for ways to engineer more effective reinforcement disorders on a civilisational scale. Key takeaway: don't be proud of hijacking consumer irrationality.