3 ms·

It seems that the author is attempting to make a case against ads themselves. I'm not convinced there is anything in the post that is Facebook-specific, or coul

It seems that the author is attempting to make a case against ads themselves. I'm not convinced there is anything in the post that is Facebook-specific, or couldn't be swapped out with 'Adwords' or 'radio ads' or even 'billboards.' He makes a case that they are not like Google's ad platform and then goes on to only account for a small subset of Google's ad platform (the part that is on Google.com search). Facebook ads are really much closer to Google's ad platform on (for instance) gmail.com or any non-google website, but he ignores these. Most of his post could have replaced "Facebook" with "Billboard" or "radio ad" and be written in 1920. As an aside, I have clicked on Facebook ads. Mopeds are listed as one of my interests, and two months ago there was an ad from Honda for the new Elite 110cc. I had no idea that they brought the Elite back. Targeted Facebook ads actually informed me of that. It goes without much saying that the vast majority of ads are never clicked on or even noticed. But that's the case with Facebook, adwords, billboards, and so on.

roc 16y ago
> "It seems that the author is attempting to make a case against ads themselves." I didn't read that at all. I got the clear impression that his case was based on Facebook Ads being ineffective as compared to ads on other platforms.
TomOfTTB 16y ago
I think you missed his point (though I can't really blame you because he has a peculiar writing style). The way I read it he has two basic points. 1. Facebook ads are different than Google ads (or other web site ads) because you go to Facebook to interact with friends while you go to the rest of the web to find information. So ads can fulfill the user's purpose on Google by providing information but they're just getting in the way of the user's purpose on Facebook. 2. Facebook's growth hides the fact that the ads don't work. Because from a revenue standpoint its hard to distinguish return customers from new customers and only return customers signal a successful platform. So people see Facebook successfully selling ads and assume the platform works when in fact its being driven by a stream of new customers who try it and fail.
- crocowhile 16y ago
  *Facebook ads are different than Google ads (or other web site ads) because you go to Facebook to interact with friends while you go to the rest of the web to find information. This is a false argument. If I interact with friends I talk about stuff I am interested about. There you have your connection with ad. Even just mentioning someone's look or hair color could immediately trigger an ad for something related to it and commercially interesting.
  - TomOfTTB 16y ago
    Well it isn't a "false" argument it's an argument you disagree with. But your circumstantial evidence (that you click on ads) is no more or less compelling than his circumstantial evidence ("that he doesn't"). The question boils down to which of you more accurately represents the public at large.
ljlolel 16y ago
I explicitly state that Google's ad platform is good. > People go to Facebook to interact with their friends. It is fundamentally different from the ad platform that is Google. People go to Google to find something they need, possibly ready to buy, which a good percentage of the time can in fact be solved by someone's ad. Facebook ads, on the other hand, annoy users. They yield no real value, and thus no profits.
- prostoalex 16y ago
  A definition of Google ad platform that does not include DoubleClick, YouTube, Gmail or AdSense Content Ads does not seem to me like a very complete definition. I think what you're trying to say is that CTR ads perform better in search environment.

roc 16y ago

> "It seems that the author is attempting to make a case against ads themselves." I didn't read that at all. I got the clear impression that his case was based on Facebook Ads being ineffective as compared to ads on other platforms.

TomOfTTB 16y ago

I think you missed his point (though I can't really blame you because he has a peculiar writing style). The way I read it he has two basic points. 1. Facebook ads are different than Google ads (or other web site ads) because you go to Facebook to interact with friends while you go to the rest of the web to find information. So ads can fulfill the user's purpose on Google by providing information but they're just getting in the way of the user's purpose on Facebook. 2. Facebook's growth hides the fact that the ads don't work. Because from a revenue standpoint its hard to distinguish return customers from new customers and only return customers signal a successful platform. So people see Facebook successfully selling ads and assume the platform works when in fact its being driven by a stream of new customers who try it and fail.

crocowhile 16y ago
*Facebook ads are different than Google ads (or other web site ads) because you go to Facebook to interact with friends while you go to the rest of the web to find information. This is a false argument. If I interact with friends I talk about stuff I am interested about. There you have your connection with ad. Even just mentioning someone's look or hair color could immediately trigger an ad for something related to it and commercially interesting.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  Well it isn't a "false" argument it's an argument you disagree with. But your circumstantial evidence (that you click on ads) is no more or less compelling than his circumstantial evidence ("that he doesn't"). The question boils down to which of you more accurately represents the public at large.

ljlolel 16y ago

I explicitly state that Google's ad platform is good. > People go to Facebook to interact with their friends. It is fundamentally different from the ad platform that is Google. People go to Google to find something they need, possibly ready to buy, which a good percentage of the time can in fact be solved by someone's ad. Facebook ads, on the other hand, annoy users. They yield no real value, and thus no profits.

prostoalex 16y ago
A definition of Google ad platform that does not include DoubleClick, YouTube, Gmail or AdSense Content Ads does not seem to me like a very complete definition. I think what you're trying to say is that CTR ads perform better in search environment.