4 ms·
Most advertisers don't have the budget/time/patience to run and manage ineffective ads across multiple sites. Especially when you know your Facebook users have
by chailatte 16y ago
Most advertisers don't have the budget/time/patience to run and manage ineffective ads across multiple sites. Especially when you know your Facebook users have a mindset of 'fun', i.e games, chatting, photos. Sure, some companies have huge budgets (oracle), and some companies are just trying their luck (small CRM company), but that's no way to have a very profitable advertising platform. Sooner or later these advertisers will leave for greener fields. After all, what good is ads targeting, when the users ignore the ads to play games/look at photos?
As far as cost for ads is concerned, I don't think Facebook stands a chance. Google can undercut Facebook anytime with their 30 billion dollar cash reserve.
- ig1 16y agoConsider it from an advertiser prospective if you make $5 per customer, and it costs you $1 to get a customer from Facebook, then you'll quite happily keep paying Facebook $1 for as long as you keep getting customers. If Google undercut them and offer you ads for $0.50, you'll buy both ! I currently buy ads at Google, Facebook, Linkedin and PlentyOfFish. Find me another source of effective advertising and I'll advertise there too. Unless your margins are razor thin and you have tiny volumes, it seems unlikely that the extra time you have to spend managing your ad campaigns would justify not using them. After all just because the CTR of Facebook is smaller than Google it doesn't mean you have to invest more time into it because your ad has to be seen 100x more often to get the same CTR.
- chailatte 16y agoThat was a mispeak. I should've used 'money-losing' instead of the word 'ineffective'. My point is there are only certain ads that is money making on Facebook, thus my reference to users' mindset of 'fun'.