5 ms·

Facebook faking viewership numbers is really an under-reported story. So many publishing companies had moderately successful business models. Then Facebook ca

by slg 7y ago

Facebook faking viewership numbers is really an under-reported story. So many publishing companies had moderately successful business models. Then Facebook came along with their amazing viewership numbers. Everyone "pivoted to video", switched to targeting native Facebook views, and chasing those unbelievable viewership totals. The views ended up being well lower than reported which means the promising revenue never materialized like expected. By the time companies realized this, it was too late to pivot back to hosting their content on their own site because the behavior of their users had already been broken by Facebook. This destroyed countless publishers including CollegeHumor and the similar Funny or Die. It is amazing that Facebook only paid a $40m settlement for this fraud.

amylene 7y ago
I am out of the loop, what were the Metrics that FB falsified? And how did they falsify them before the video was hosted on their site? Just trying to understand how their game numbers caused this post, and I can’t seem to make it connect.
- trickjarrett 7y ago
  Adam Conover (Adam Ruins Everything guy) tweeted a good thread that explains this: https://twitter.com/adamconover/status/1183209875859333120 https://twitter.com/adamconover/status/1183209875859333120
  - eitland 7y ago
    If I read this correctly I'm not the only one who shys away from video content? If this is the fact, does that mean we can get plain text back?
    - veb 7y ago
      Talking about an interesting side-effect about videos in social media in recent times is they've learned to put text (or captions) in their videos for people (because they might have sound off) which made it far easier for deaf people to understand them! For which I am glad, but I barely use Facebook these days at all - just messenger.com
- synlatexc 7y ago
  FB's measure of views was dubious (3 seconds, even if the audio was off). So the #s looked great for them, but in reality the majority of views were just glimpses as people scrolled through their news feed.
  - shawabawa3 7y ago
    I don't understand why publishers moved everything wholesale onto Facebook without doing some research Why not put up a few videos and compare ad revenue? When it didn't add up they could just move back...
    - excursionist 7y ago
      I assume facebook still pays for all views it counts, so there is no downside in terms of ad revenue for publishers.
    - wmil 7y ago
      They were selling their own ads based on Facebook's numbers, then had to refund advertisers when they found out the truth.
      - rhizome 7y ago
        This is a good point, that Facebook decided to pollute their clients' revenue streams with fraud, and the clients had to pay the price for that.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      That would have been the shrewd business move, and a sufficiently callous read of the entire situation can conclude "It's CH's fault for making a bad gamble without due diligence. Even a popular, publicly-traded company can run a scam or have a screw-up; history has examples." I doubt most people agree with that read though.
    - HeroOfAges 7y ago
      When you can objectively measure results, you'll often find that the people making decisions in an organization aren't as competent as they seem. It's a bitter pill to swallow when you realize that most of the people you have to take orders from didn't get to where they are through intelligence, hard work and character.
mikepurvis 7y ago
Relevant Twitter thread from Adam Conover ("Adam Ruins Everything"): https://twitter.com/adamconover/status/1183209875859333120 https://twitter.com/adamconover/status/1183209875859333120 An article about the settlement, including a link to the document itself: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/facebook-pay-40-million-under-proposed-settlement-video-metrics-suit-1245807 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/facebook-pay-40-mi...
- riffraff 7y ago
  what I don't get is, if they saw a high number of views on FB with no actual revenue, why didn't they revert to their previous behavior of just sharing links?
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Some of the revenue will have been CH directly selling ads (sponsorships, product placement, etc.) based on those inflated viewership counts.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      ... and that's the meta-story. "Ad-supported business models are fragile."
      - vkou 7y ago
        Do you have a better business model that has been proven to work for monetizing the kind of content CH made? People won't pay for a subscription for that, people won't donate enough to keep the business afloat, and people don't actually want to use attention tokens/microtransactions. A lot of people claimed that these alternatives work, but I've yet to see a business prove that they actually work.
        Groxx 7y ago
        Dropout, the CH thing that will keep running for 6 months or more despite all this, is subscription-based.

by slg 7y ago

amylene 7y ago

I am out of the loop, what were the Metrics that FB falsified? And how did they falsify them before the video was hosted on their site? Just trying to understand how their game numbers caused this post, and I can’t seem to make it connect.

trickjarrett 7y ago
Adam Conover (Adam Ruins Everything guy) tweeted a good thread that explains this: https://twitter.com/adamconover/status/1183209875859333120 https://twitter.com/adamconover/status/1183209875859333120
- eitland 7y ago
  If I read this correctly I'm not the only one who shys away from video content? If this is the fact, does that mean we can get plain text back?
  - veb 7y ago
    Talking about an interesting side-effect about videos in social media in recent times is they've learned to put text (or captions) in their videos for people (because they might have sound off) which made it far easier for deaf people to understand them! For which I am glad, but I barely use Facebook these days at all - just messenger.com
synlatexc 7y ago
FB's measure of views was dubious (3 seconds, even if the audio was off). So the #s looked great for them, but in reality the majority of views were just glimpses as people scrolled through their news feed.
- shawabawa3 7y ago
  I don't understand why publishers moved everything wholesale onto Facebook without doing some research Why not put up a few videos and compare ad revenue? When it didn't add up they could just move back...
  - excursionist 7y ago
    I assume facebook still pays for all views it counts, so there is no downside in terms of ad revenue for publishers.
  - wmil 7y ago
    They were selling their own ads based on Facebook's numbers, then had to refund advertisers when they found out the truth.
    - rhizome 7y ago
      This is a good point, that Facebook decided to pollute their clients' revenue streams with fraud, and the clients had to pay the price for that.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    That would have been the shrewd business move, and a sufficiently callous read of the entire situation can conclude "It's CH's fault for making a bad gamble without due diligence. Even a popular, publicly-traded company can run a scam or have a screw-up; history has examples." I doubt most people agree with that read though.
  - HeroOfAges 7y ago
    When you can objectively measure results, you'll often find that the people making decisions in an organization aren't as competent as they seem. It's a bitter pill to swallow when you realize that most of the people you have to take orders from didn't get to where they are through intelligence, hard work and character.

mikepurvis 7y ago

Relevant Twitter thread from Adam Conover ("Adam Ruins Everything"): https://twitter.com/adamconover/status/1183209875859333120 https://twitter.com/adamconover/status/1183209875859333120 An article about the settlement, including a link to the document itself: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/facebook-pay-40-million-under-proposed-settlement-video-metrics-suit-1245807 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/facebook-pay-40-mi...

riffraff 7y ago
what I don't get is, if they saw a high number of views on FB with no actual revenue, why didn't they revert to their previous behavior of just sharing links?
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Some of the revenue will have been CH directly selling ads (sponsorships, product placement, etc.) based on those inflated viewership counts.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    ... and that's the meta-story. "Ad-supported business models are fragile."
    - vkou 7y ago
      Do you have a better business model that has been proven to work for monetizing the kind of content CH made? People won't pay for a subscription for that, people won't donate enough to keep the business afloat, and people don't actually want to use attention tokens/microtransactions. A lot of people claimed that these alternatives work, but I've yet to see a business prove that they actually work.
      - Groxx 7y ago
        Dropout, the CH thing that will keep running for 6 months or more despite all this, is subscription-based.