2 ms·

Personally, I think the assertion that $100K in ads (paid for by Russians or not) swayed the last general election is simultaneously the best and worst thing fo

by mikece 6y ago

Personally, I think the assertion that $100K in ads (paid for by Russians or not) swayed the last general election is simultaneously the best and worst thing for Facebook. It's the best PR in the sense that the story is out there that ad spends on FB are SO massively effective that otherwise smart people can be convinced to elect an orange-skinned baffoon as President -- imagine what it could do for your brand/company? And it's the worst possible story to have out there because it invites investigation which, under scrutiny, will show that ads on Facebook are like ads anywhere else online: almost completely useless. And Facebook is caught in a position of not being able to deny the "$100k in Russian ads" story because that would crater whatever confidence there is in the effectiveness of marketing on FB. No wonder Zuckerberg looks like he's permanently in a cold sweat when he's in DC.

aspenmayer 6y ago
Thank you for this comment. It really summed up a lot of my disparate musings on this topic in an nicely structured succinct complete thought. The word almost in your sentence about ads being “almost completely useless” is maybe deserving of a bit more exploration. Ads work, but I think it’s in the same way that placebos work. Brand exposure is the big thing that good ads do well and bad ads do less well. If you write off all ads, you’ll still be surrounded by ads and brands, just with even less awareness about the context of either. Maybe that is better for the buyer but it seems perhaps even better for the seller. They lose on targeting info but gain leverage in the transaction due to buyer ignorance about the market for that good and the seller’s relative brand proposition. Then again, most ads aren’t that informative for purchasing decisions. They are an emotional appeal for most ads. Perhaps that is why people care to see Facebook change. Facebook knows which ads you linger on or interact with. This data and it’s value to Facebook and its advertising partners is the real that reason Zuckerberg is trying not to end the party yet. The data is probably worth more than the money at this point.

by mikece 6y ago

aspenmayer 6y ago

Thank you for this comment. It really summed up a lot of my disparate musings on this topic in an nicely structured succinct complete thought. The word almost in your sentence about ads being “almost completely useless” is maybe deserving of a bit more exploration. Ads work, but I think it’s in the same way that placebos work. Brand exposure is the big thing that good ads do well and bad ads do less well. If you write off all ads, you’ll still be surrounded by ads and brands, just with even less awareness about the context of either. Maybe that is better for the buyer but it seems perhaps even better for the seller. They lose on targeting info but gain leverage in the transaction due to buyer ignorance about the market for that good and the seller’s relative brand proposition. Then again, most ads aren’t that informative for purchasing decisions. They are an emotional appeal for most ads. Perhaps that is why people care to see Facebook change. Facebook knows which ads you linger on or interact with. This data and it’s value to Facebook and its advertising partners is the real that reason Zuckerberg is trying not to end the party yet. The data is probably worth more than the money at this point.