5 ms·

I'm not sure if it necessarily means Facebook is non-essential. This actually makes me think social media has entered a deep stage of maturity. Anyone else here

I'm not sure if it necessarily means Facebook is non-essential. This actually makes me think social media has entered a deep stage of maturity. Anyone else here remember how advertisers were primary regulators of content on TV? That unusually offensive content was avoided out of fear that companies would pull their commercials? I think we see the Facebook has now entered this stage.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
CPG brands are not core to FB's revenue growth. In general, FB make most of their money from direct response advertising, rather than brand advertising. Additionally, the CPG model of ad buying doesn't make a lot of sense for eithe Google or Facebook, I'm not sure that this boycott makes much difference from a revenue perspective. However, because Unilever are so huge, it probably does make a difference from a PR perspective, which is why we see lots of articles about this.
foolmeonce 6y ago
It's an interesting perspective, yet a TV a ban on 1 show or network was pretty limited for the advertiser since there was proper regulation on media at the time. I.e. dropping the most popular news program still left you with ~50% reach in the same category on the other 2 networks. An advertiser dropping a major tech company today is refusing to be seen in all social contexts of one type, or all searches, etc. If advertisers go ahead with this on a permanent basis it is a very interesting message, and I think we don't know so much about this since our past regulations were really based on outcomes with individuals and small companies as the victims of bad markets.