27 ms·

Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

255 points by DarkContinent 6y ago

gruglife 6y ago
It’s so true. At the end of the day, users haven’t abandoned FB and that’s what advertisers care about.
- wand3r 6y ago
  In some ways they have though, at least in terms of time allocation. When Facebook was in its heyday it was the default social network. They dont seem to be adding as many new users and I suspect they are churning old users. They also have to compete with wechat, twitter, tiktok, reddit, twitch, etc so its not obvious to anyone but facebook how loyal the userbase is. Facebook is becoming less relevant so yes these companies will most likely be back, but what about 5 years? They might not be willing to pay the same rates. Facebook will kind of be like a personal email client that people check occasionally. Facebook.com specifically, Instagram itself will remain popular for a while I would wager.
  - ramraj07 6y ago
    Does that make a difference then? Facebook's going to continue tracking the users all the same, their ad formats will just be different
  - shripadk 6y ago
    > In some ways they have though, at least in terms of time allocation. When Facebook was in its heyday it was the default social network. They dont seem to be adding as many new users and I suspect they are churning old users. They also have to compete with wechat, twitter, tiktok, reddit, twitch, etc so its not obvious to anyone but facebook how loyal the userbase is. But it has nothing to do with loyalty. It has all to do with algorithms. If Facebook's AI is superior to Twitter, Wechat, TikTok, Reddit and Twitch then advertisers will never leave Facebook. All Facebook needs is 30 seconds of user time to show them ads. Also don't forget the audience network that Facebook has. Are you playing a free game of Ludo on your mobile? You will be shown an ad in between games. That ad is served by Facebook. So it is not even necessary for the user to be on the platform to be shown ads! Now how do you tackle that? Publishers will also have to abandon Facebook. That will not happen so easily. The only way to tackle Facebook is to create an alternative that has at least 50% of the user base that Facebook does and also have an equally good AI Ad platform or superior. > Facebook is becoming less relevant so yes these companies will most likely be back, but what about 5 years? They might not be willing to pay the same rates. Facebook will kind of be like a personal email client that people check occasionally. Facebook.com specifically, Instagram itself will remain popular for a while I would wager. Facebook knows that. That is why they are constantly improving their algos to make it cheaper themselves. Advertisers don't want access to a billion people really. They just need to sell to a few hundred or thousand people to make their profits. Even if Facebook userbase comes down by 50%, if the Facebook AI is half as decent as it claims to be, it will still find the right audience for advertisers to target!
    - maps7 6y ago
      Personal opinion but TikTok's is great. I got sucked in in less than 1 min. I actually think the rest suck, including FB. Reddit has no AI. Netflix's recommendation engine is usually spot on for me but I guess that is less difficult.
      - jquery 6y ago
        TikTok somehow convinced a bunch of young girls to dance in scanty clothes for the enjoyment of the internet for likes and comments. It’s not as bad as it used to be but knowing how they got started, as a de facto child porn production and distribution outlet (imagine if /r/jailbait was a default subreddit when Reddit launched), it’s hard for me to get over that and use TikTok.
        maps7 6y ago
        When I open TikTok, that is not what I see at all. It's funny videos, sketches, memes that are all pretty relevant to where I live and around current affairs. That said I don't use TikTok (or Instagram, FB etc) so maybe it's more like you're saying.
- MagnumPIG 6y ago
  Depends which users. A lot of teenagers are "mostly on Instagram" or "only use it for Messenger". And teenagers are apparently an important population to marketers. I know FB owns Instagram but the point is, Facebook as a platform may be past its prime in NA.
  - jehlakj 6y ago
    There’s even a meme: Facebook is for boomers. Idk how much of that is true, but apps like Instagram and tiktok are definitely talked about more these days
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Boomers have the money, though. And advertisers like people with money.
      - linuxftw 6y ago
        Smart advertisers, anyway. The older folks make facebook sticky for the younger people too. It might not be their first choice for social media, but they're on there cause extended family are on there. Some people quit facebook, most people don't. There's lots of groups, and now you have market place. It's genuinely useful.
        neutronicus 6y ago
        Yeah my wife and I (millennials) have both been "Facebook is for Boomers" people in the past, but when I was into competitive card games all the events were organized on Facebook, and now that we have a baby there are all kinds of new parent groups that we use. We still don't really think much of it as a social network but somehow while we weren't looking it pretty much ate Craigslist, Meetup, and Local News so now we're on the platform again. Like if someone has some baby formula they don't need, we find out on Facebook. If somebody gets stabbed at the pizzeria across the street, we find out on Facebook. If there's a card game tournament, I (found) out on Facebook.
    - 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- newguy1234 6y ago
  Advertisers just go to where the eye balls are at. Facebook has a good moat but places like reddit and twitter don't. There are already clones for both twitter and reddit. Some communities have left reddit and started their own standalone communities. Often times these communities are so tight-knit that most of the users leave the original platform completely. Same story for twitter. People are moving to a new platform called parler.
- catacombs 6y ago
  > At the end of the day, users haven’t abandoned FB and that’s what advertisers care about. This goes, especially, to older people who couldn't care less and just want an easy platform to post political memes and gossip about the weird guys who come around the neighborhood in big trucks and snatch everyone's garbage from the curb.
wnevets 6y ago
He is 100% correct. These advertisers have gotten millions of dollars in free PR for the "boycott" but that last won't long for most of them.
- bennettfeely 6y ago
  I really have a hard time believing consumer behavior is affected by these boycotts. Is the average person running to spend more at Starbucks or Hershey or Honda because they temporarily "stood up to Facebook"?
  - wnevets 6y ago
    if there is enough news about it, why not? There is a segment of the population upset at starbucks over their holiday cups.
  - EForEndeavour 6y ago
    Analogously, does the average person run to spend more at Starbucks or Hershey or Honda because they scrolled past the same ad 10 times in a single day in their Instagram feed?
pphysch 6y ago
Of course they will. The calculus has been done; the marketing boost from saying "we are pulling ads from Facebook (for X weeks)" apparently outweighs the actual value of those weeks of passive Facebook ads. And then things will be back to "business-as-usual" (although outrage marketing is business-as-usual).
shoguning 6y ago
My interpretation of what's going on: CEOs finally have leverage against their marketing departments to do black-out testing on social media ad spend. It's difficult to actually measure impact of ad spending, and marketing teams spin results to their advantage. They will observe what happens and re-introduce spending where it actually works.
- pphysch 6y ago
  I doubt this very much. Doing black-out testing silently would be just as easy and allow a much greater degree of experimental control.
  - ramraj07 6y ago
    Well if it fails, and revenue drops, that would be hard to explain to shareholders right? Especially if the test has to extend for months to be realistic. Now they can at least say it's for a social cause.
    - pphysch 6y ago
      Just blame it on the 'rona or geopolitics.
  - shoguning 6y ago
    Maybe? Part of the leverage is going public and saying it's about some principle. For experimental control, executives tend to think simple is better. The more complex, the more room for fudging.
  - wand3r 6y ago
    Also, it is being done during one of the craziest markets and climate ever to occur so it would be difficult to really get good numbers.
- fourstar 6y ago
  Bad take. These companies are using FB as a scapegoat to reduce ad operations during this pandemic/company budget reductions.
Barrin92 6y ago
Of course he's right. If anything I'm surprised advertisers aren't cutting back more given how much revenue they're probably losing during the pandemic. Real change has to come from two sources. Firstly regulation, Facebook will never "self-regulate" and this corporate activism is a joke. And secondly, from employees who in sufficient numbers have at least some leverage.
- goodrubyist 6y ago
  You do realize that regulating Facebook and other social media companies in order to force them to limit speech on their platforms would expressly violate the First Amendment? And, thank God for 1A, given the enormous amount of interest people have in limiting speech.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >You do realize that regulating Facebook and other social media companies in order to force them to limit speech on their platforms would expressly violate the First Amendment? Yet FCC is still around regulating speech on broadcast television.
    - shripadk 6y ago
      Because broadcast media is a publisher. Does Facebook want to call itself a publisher? If it does then I am sure FCC will regulate Facebook too. Right now all social media platforms are shielded by Section 230. They are platforms and not liable to what is posted on their platforms. But, some social media companies like Twitter have taken on the mantle of a publisher by mucking around with the US President's tweets. This has now set a precedent. Tomorrow Trump may or may not be in office. But Twitter will continue to exist. Will it continue to edit/censor Presidents and Prime Ministers around the World? If Twitter acquires those powers for itself without any regulatory oversight then you have an unofficial Supranational Government: Social Media.
      - untog 6y ago
        > Does Facebook want to call itself a publisher? I'm quite sure it doesn't want to call itself one. But once it made an algorithmic feed it decided to have a hand in what users do and do not see. It's not unreasonable to ask for some accountability in what that algorithm does, and such accountability is definitely not a violation of the first amendment. > Will it continue to edit/censor Presidents and Prime Ministers Point of clarification here: Twitter censored and edited absolutely nothing. They attached a warning to Trump's tweet. It is still available for all to read in its entirety.
cultus 6y ago
It will be a moot point soon enough when the ad market crashes.
forgotmypw17 6y ago
Of course they will. All of the "boycotts" but one I've seen were until of the month, and the way it's worded, they probably won't even stop using it, just putting money into their account.
cairoshikobon 6y ago
Last two things I got from FB Ads: "Smart" Wallet in Nov 2019: Never arrived. Owner now keeps posting dramatic posts without issuing anyone a refund. Bamboo Socks: Never arrived. No email after the first order confirmation last year. No nothing.
- product50 6y ago
  Last 10 things I bought from FB ads. All arrived and our family loves it. Anecdotes are just that - one off instances. What matters is the trend. And a lot of users buy from Facebook Ads and are happy with it. That is why Facebook revenue keeps growing at 25% yoy on a massive base of $70B.
  - ianlevesque 6y ago
    HN has gone nuts. Downvoted to oblivion when quoting figures from quarterly reports.
- kache_ 6y ago
  You don't vehemently boycott everything that is advertised to you? P:
  - Kiro 6y ago
    Neither are you. You get brainwashed like the rest of us.
  - eaandkw 6y ago
    I tried that for a while. Then I realized I spend most of my time on Twitter, FB, etc. hiding or deleting ads. So I just deleted all of my social media accounts.
mhoad 6y ago
On a related note I just saw someone on Twitter mentioning this report that was just released that does a real deep dive into how the problems associated with hate speech have played out on the ground in India. [1] It's grim reading and I think it is a huge slap in the face to that ridiculous corporate propaganda piece they released the other day saying that they don't profit from hate speech. I'd encourage people to have a read of this, I often see these Facebook threads become extremely abstract and quickly becomes derailed about principles of free speech and the conversation just runs around in circles. Instead this is a very concrete instance of a problem that is really happening and in concerning numbers around the world (i.e. the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar) that is directly aided by Facebook. I want to instead have the conversation about what should we do about this particular problem and it's variations? Should brands factor these kinds of problems into their marketing strategies? [1] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58347d04bebafbb1e66df84c/t/5d018607143f4a000121707e/1560380939010/Facebook_India_Report_Equality_Labs.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58347d04bebafbb1e66df...
- higglydiggly 6y ago
  This is pretty explicitly the type of speech that doesn't need protection by 1A. The absolutism of it is really an ideal that practically achieved would lead to some ugliness. But I'm wondering how this extends to banning conservatives, conspiracy theory pages, or even jokes? When is it going too far over the line, which is drawn at different points for different people/groups? Because my fear is the government doesn't crackdown like 1984, but the public is convinced there is a much broader definition of wrongthink that people call each other on, leading to less creative expression even if it's offensive (with context) and essentially the same as CCP limitations of speech. For instance I think we're mostly over the days of racial one-liners that are just dumb and play on stereotypes, but how do we convince people still thinking those jokes are appropriate to cease using them? Education and compassion may help in some cases but not all.
  - shuntress 6y ago
    Lets start by condemning and removing organized genocide. There is (hopefully) enough space between "actively organizing genocide" and "conservatives, conspiracy theory pages, or even jokes" to allow room for a reasonable line. >how do we convince people still thinking those jokes are appropriate to cease using them By restricting their ability to make those jokes in a way that is clearly tied to the act of making those jokes.
ma2rten 6y ago
I don't know if Zuckerberg is right or not, but his retortic doesn't make it more likely that they will back.
- bigdict 6y ago
  rhetoric + retort = retortic
the_unknown 6y ago
And yes, he's absolutely correct. Some advertisers such as the big Canadian banks aren't even hiding it now switching from announcing a boycott to a limited-time withdrawal: "Participating brands will suspend all advertising on the platform for the month of July." https://globalnews.ca/news/7129688/facebook-boycott-canada-banks/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7129688/facebook-boycott-canada-b...
- paulgb 6y ago
  Nobody was ever hiding that the boycott is for July; the call for the boycott says so in the first line. Some companies decided to go for more than a month but that's their choice. > On June 17, Color Of Change along with the NAACP, ADL, Sleeping Giants, Free Press, and Common Sense Media called on Facebook’s advertisers to hit pause on ad spending for July 2020 > https://colorofchange.org/stop-hate-for-profit/ https://colorofchange.org/stop-hate-for-profit/
  - wolco 6y ago
    Is there a big list of all of the companies taking part?
    - charliepark 6y ago
      The list is probably longer now, but here's one from late June: https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1276681468119572481 https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1276681468119572481
    - simo_dax 6y ago
      https://www.stophateforprofit.org/participating-businesses https://www.stophateforprofit.org/participating-businesses
      - wolco 6y ago
        Kind of a sad excuse for a list. Can't see it moving the needle where it affects share price.
throwawaysea 6y ago
I hope he doesn’t cave in. All the companies who signed onto the campaign to stop advertising on Facebook are essentially against the fundamental principles freedom of speech and expression. I don’t plan to buy from them any longer, because they’re normalizing censorship.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  He won't cave. If he did, he'd lose, not advertisers, but users. Some fraction of his user base cares about being able to express those opinions.
- acallaghan 6y ago
  > I don’t plan to buy from them any longer, because they’re normalizing censorship. Go make a right-wing social media site, or join one that exists now. There's people threatening civil war if Trump isn't re-elected, without being challenged or 'censored'. Freedom of speech is from the government, private companies have freedom to choose what they allow, given they also have free speech
jb775 6y ago
As long as companies like making money more than whatever cause they're claiming to care about, Zuckerberg will be proven right.
seebetter 6y ago
Facebook is funny because I generally agree and disagree with everyone. But people make their points so poorly, they have no sense of objectivity or analytical ability, that I’m dismayed by all sides by the lack of a principled approach. 90% of what people post about is a distraction and futile. I wish Facebook could motivate and inform people to attend local government meetings. Instead, it’s like an interactive tabloid magazine that we’re embedded in. We’re on the shelf in a Rite-Aid living in a world of ridiculousness as corporations pass by us and sell us stuff. 24 hours a day.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  The goal isn't to confer change, it's to increase platform interactions. The best way to do that is to give you content that inspires strong emotions whether it's uplifting positivity or partisan hate. The entire reason to have reposts is for high-interaction content to get more traction while your Aunt Sally posting food pictures gets ignored. If Aunt Sally posts something divisive that gets lots of angry emoji faces and angry comments, then that will tend to spread more on the platform.
- airstrike 6y ago
  More people need to read The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck https://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Art-Not-Giving-Counterintuitive/dp/0062457713 https://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Art-Not-Giving-Counterintuitiv...
  - catacombs 6y ago
    The book is terrible. Mark Manson is terrible. Yes, by all means people should read, but not this. There is plenty of good literature, especially fiction, that doles out the same advice but in more tactful manner, rather than the writings of a guy's lifetime of good fortune.
    - airstrike 6y ago
      > The book is terrible. Mark Manson is terrible. Ad hominem. > There is plenty of good literature Never claimed otherwise, and it's not a zero-sum game. > especially fiction Sure, but different strokes for different folks, and there's something to be said about the directness of a self-help book vs. fiction. > that doles out the same advice but in more tactful manner His blunt voice is precisely why many find the book valuable. It cuts to the chase. The title itself makes it clear that this is what you'll get, so opening the book expecting otherwise would be nonsensical. > rather the writings of a guy's lifetime of good fortune His good fortune has no bearing on the value of his ideas. Again an ad hominem.
op03 6y ago
Zuck is busy trying ensure his best employees aren't running for the hills. Too late man too late. It's already happening.
- sfpoet 6y ago
  Yeah, if recruiters are tagging the least interested in tech in my contacts, then I know it's a ship going down. Acqui-hire is their only way to replenish the talent pool, now.
  - djohnston 6y ago
    Are you saying fb is tagging non tech people for jobs?
    - sfpoet 6y ago
      I didn't want to be rude and say, "least talented people." Here I'm equating least interested with least talented.
sfpoet 6y ago
All I can do is imagine Jesse Eisenberg saying this. There are other channels you can push your spend through with decent ROI. Nobody's platform be it a personal blog or small app is without analytics anymore. Shorting Facebook: FB 210p 7/10
- xfour 6y ago
  2:10pm 7/10/2020?
  - qvrjuec 6y ago
    I think he means he's buying put options at 210 expiring on 7/10
  - greenshackle2 6y ago
    Don't know if you're joking, but it's Facebook put option with strike price of $210 expiring on 7/10, in other words, betting that the stock price of FB will be less than $210 by July 10 - current price is $235, so that would be down ~10%.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- anm89 6y ago
  Is it really necessary to announce that you've taken a specific position. Should we all layout all of our related positions on every post about a company? This doesn't belong here.
  - djohnston 6y ago
    I think it's good to disclose financial interests if you're making a point about a company, like disclosing if you are an employee.
  - 6y ago
ben85ts 6y ago
potential ad free alternative https://userheist.com https://userheist.com
actuator 6y ago
I am neither a FB user, employee or stockholder. FB has taken a lot of steps which I would not support personally; but how likely would it be for FB's bad policies to get more fanned by the old media(newspapers, news TV channels, influential blogs) because they have an axe to grind here. FB essentially disrupted the whole business model of old media and commoditizes old media entities. FB acts as a middleman, eats up revenue share and weakens the brand-user relationship, something no old media company will like.
ankit219 6y ago
Facebook has a long tail of 8 million advertisers (according to their earnings report).Some of the big ones leaving would mean that the relatively smaller ones would get better returns on spend (due to fewer bidders and lower top bid) and in turn spend more. This does help the brands get a bit of free PR at Facebook's expense, given that many of them would have been planning to reduce the spend anyway due to Covid.
- darawk 6y ago
  Yep. This is just a few big companies finding a clever way to get free marketing out of a decision to cut their marketing budgets due to the pandemic.
- sharkmerry 6y ago
  By that same token, how big are the companies at the end of the tail? If large corporations are cutting marketing budgets, small shops on tighter budgets probably are as well
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    If you have a positive ROI on marketing, and prices go down, you increase spend. Big brands cutting spend on positive ROI is probably foolish, especially if it lets your competitors increase their ROI. For brands like pepsi that don't sell online, then it's just a cost center.
  - ankit219 6y ago
    Its the volume that makes up for that. Top 100 adverstisers on Facebook make up less than 20% of the total advertising revenue. So, a lot of other subscribers make up a major chunk, and if they increase spend even slightly (given better ROI) Facebook will have a net gain. Not every other guy would have a tighter budget. Companies like a gaming company, a streaming platform, home delivery, edtech, telemedicine, D2C brands to name a few are the ones which have increased their budget during these times. Adding that to the fact they get better ROI on Facebook ads mean they will end up spending more (and getting more value in return).
- 6y ago
legitster 6y ago
I work in marketing. Advertising markets are pretty damned efficient. If a bunch of advertisers pull out, rates come down, new advertisers come in. There may be some affect, especially if big companies were spending inefficiently to build "awareness". But at the end of the day, the market rate for a click is the market rate. Someone will pay for it.
- sfpoet 6y ago
  If that were true, then why aren't frequencies capped for most campaigns run on-line?
  - legitster 6y ago
    I don't think I understand this question. Why doesn't Facebook limit the number of impressions? I assume the premise is that fewer ads will be worth more? Again, the ad market is insanely efficient and competitive. Restricted supply doesn't correlate with increased prices. If 1000 impressions is worth $20 to me, and it costs $30 on Facebook, I can take my money elsewhere. I don't even need to push a button, I have software that could automatically change my budget minute to minute.
    - reilly3000 6y ago
      More inventory means more chances to sell something to an advertiser. That is why they go to such great lengths to build massive data centers with gigantic digital brains to figure out how to optimize session depth, impressions/user, watch time, etc. Buyers are not able to pay beyond their profit margin, so increased rates just means they cut budget and look somewhere else.
    - sfpoet 6y ago
      Let me explain it another way. As a user, I often see the same ad 100s of times. Yes, 100s. On most ad software, you can set it so that the user sees it maybe 3 times. The fact that I see an ad 100s of times means that the ad market is inefficient. Maybe the competition for that ad space is efficient, but from a user POV, advertisers are wasting time and space.
CogentHedgehog 6y ago
Facebook is taking a firm stance NOW. But I imagine they will end up singing a different tune if enough companies join the boycott to drop their ad revenues by 20%. Cuts in ad buys directly hurt their profits, because ad sellers (and data collection firms) are their primary customers. Users are just a commodity that enables Facebook to sell ads and harvest data.
12xo 6y ago
If Facebook was a bar, would you go there? Would you hang out there? I wouldnt.
gbolcer 6y ago
He should just ban them for a year.
gbolcer 6y ago
He should just ban them for a year just to see what their reaction is.
- anm89 6y ago
  That would be amazing to watch.
- lallysingh 6y ago
  Maybe let's wait to see how the anti-trust conversation goes first.
  - ThrustVectoring 6y ago
    If you're looking for anti-trust conversations, "let's all collaborate to stop doing business with Facebook" looks a lot more like an illegal combination in restraint of trade.
MangoCoffee 6y ago
even if big Corps stop advertising on FB. they will pay for FB's massive data.
cik 6y ago
Whilst companies have discussed pulling out of Facebook, for the most part they're neither discussing, nor implementing exits from Instagram. As Instagram makes up an increasing amount of Facebook's revenue, the reality is that they're rather unconcerned. This is part of the cycle.
baxtr 6y ago
Of course they will. It's called performance marketing for a reason. You can track your marketing invest down to the penny. Who cares if they're evil. I believe that this is mostly a small little kindle that will burn out soon, and not a huge wildfire for Facebook.
cm2012 6y ago
Here's the business case why advertisers wouldn't want to enter the boycott, beyond just losing their fb sales: 1) Facebook has had a number of negative sounding news cycles in the past few years (Cambridge Analytica, etc.), and data shows that the average American hasn't changed their behavior based on them. 70% of all Americans and Canadians use Facebook or Instagram at least once a month, and 55% of all Americans and Canadians use it at least once per day. Facebook's monthly and daily user counts have only grown. 2) Facebook has done a better job than many in blocking hate speech. They can always do better, but I'd be worried about scope creep. If Facebook makes changes that the boycott organizers don't think are enough, it could make advertisers in the boycott a target if they start spending on FB again later. One key risk is if the boycott demands they start deleting Trump's posts, like Twitter did. If that happens, it would potentially put any boycotters in an unpleasant media cycle. 3) Most of the advertisers joining so far are companies that either are progressive at their roots (Patagonia, Ben & Jerry's, The North Face) or want to cut ad spend in a COVID environment anyway (Verizon, Unilever). For instance, Unilever is also pausing Twitter ads, which has nothing to do with the boycott. 4) Right now the general public does not associate most companies with FB ads. Joining the list will remind people who are passionate about this issue that their company does FB ads at all, which they don't currently think about. So all the above combined makes me conclude that joining the boycott offers few advantages, but presents real risks.
- Alex3917 6y ago
  > it would potentially put any boycotters in an unpleasant media cycle. That's already happening anyway, look at Ryan and Saagar today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQICXcPBG8c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQICXcPBG8c
saos 6y ago
I actually hope not.
ricardo81 6y ago
And he has reason to be optimistic. As per the UK's recent review into competition, 80% of online advertising spend in the UK at least, is spent with Google and Facebook [0] So, perhaps in his mind it hurts them more than it hurts Facebook [0] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-regime-needed-to-take-on-tech-giants https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-regime-needed-to-take...
jb775 6y ago
If my direct competition is partaking in this boycott, I'm doubling down on my facebook ad-spend. Great opportunity to steal customers from your competition while they are worried about posturing.
- willcipriano 6y ago
  You'd probably be able to cut your ad spend in half and get the same result if the niche is small enough. If only you are buying ad spots for Amish chocolate teapot fans all of the sudden I imagine the price goes down quickly.
zelphirkalt 6y ago
Such a statement shows, that he still has learned nothing, specifically not responsibility. For Zuckerberg it needs to financially hurt, in order to cause ethical decisions. Well, such kind of statement will hopefully also prolong the boykott, because no one will want to seem like the beaten dog, beaten. ack into line. Hopefully the boykott will even increase.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  Maybe the ask was just too big. If someone bashed me relentlessly over media, I too would be trying to mollify the mob.. but not at any price.
- devalgo 6y ago
  >For Zuckerberg it needs to financially hurt, in order to cause ethical decisions. Hasn't he lost ~$6B in net worth because of this?
  - philg_jr 6y ago
    So he is worth $82B now? Do you think he really loses sleep over that? He knows this is temporary and the stock will most likely bounce back.
  - esoterica 6y ago
    He did when FB's stock fell from $242 to $216 a couple days ago. Now it's back up to $234, so you do the math.
  - globular-toast 6y ago
    He hasn't really lost anything. Even if he was planning to liquidate all of his stock right now, and assuming he could sell it all at the current market rate, what do you think could really be bought for $6 billion? They are just numbers at this level. He hasn't lost anything tangible.
    - devalgo 6y ago
      By that logic it's impossible for him to lose anything tangible so OP's comment is pointless.
someluccc 6y ago
The cool thing about facebook’s highly targeted advertising is that it balances the ad market in favor of niche players vs. generalists, which also means they have a long long tail of millions of small buyers vs. a few huge ones who used to dominate traditional media. Old marketing was carpetbombing, which meant only those with B-52 sized budgets could dominate. It was also deeply entwined with centralized high-volume distribution models, aligning the interests of big manufactures and big retailers. Today’s marketing is precision bombing. You just need the right explosion in the right place. Likewise, internet distribution enables the economics of small manufacturers and small retailers (shopify/amz third-party). Which is why big advertisers have done relatively poorly with internet ads. Their prior campaigns worked, not so much because they or the product were good, but because they could silence small competitors. Because retailers could only carry a limited amount of products they would favor the big mfgs who could provide bulk orders. Consumers just went for them because they had no other choice. Today small player’s can advertise to narrow niches where rates are low. Likewise consumers can access products that better suit their specific needs/wants. What this means is that FB doesn’t really need or depend on big budget advertisers. Mark knows this.
- msla 6y ago
  > Today’s marketing is precision bombing. You just need the right explosion in the right place. Likewise, the internet enables the economies of small manufacturers and small retailers (shopify/amz third-party). It's direct mail and it's nothing new. It was annoying decades ago, it's even more annoying now, because it's better-targeted, to the point it's effectively surveillance. Carpet-bombing advertising is brand advertising: It's somewhat annoying, but it doesn't track you.
  - someluccc 6y ago
    Direct mail is to FB ads what chariots are to a Ferrari. You can pay facebook to target any of 1.7 Billion people with 0 research on your end. You can automate a campaign for reach/effectiveness. Your budget can be whatever you want it to be. You can get instant feedback and adjust accordingly. FB adds are expensive because people click on them. They click on them because they are useful. They are also minimally intrusive: just scroll past, no click to close, no have to watch, no site ruining banners. I for one, actually like FB ads: they show things I may want or need, often with a discount or some other benefit.
spicyramen 6y ago
My take is that since many people increase their cellphone usage, some renown brands do not need advertising as they may already seen increase in online sales, hence could be a good reason to cut in ads and be politically correct
smashah 6y ago
I predict that Facebook will do a huge OOH campaign squeezing the other co's to come back to Facebook
ucha 6y ago
There is this very good article of Ben Thompson [1] predicting that Zuckerberg won't budge: 1/ large advertisers represent a small portion of FB's ad revenue 2/ if large advertisers leave and price of ads fall, other "social media ad-dependent businesses" will pick up the slack because they can measure very well their advertising return on investment thus driving the price of ads back up. [1] https://stratechery.com/2020/apple-and-facebook/ https://stratechery.com/2020/apple-and-facebook/
will_pseudonym 6y ago
Advertisers certainly will be back, because their public support for the cause du jour is simply a rational decision to make money/avoid losing money. When established corporations support your cause, you should be worried, because what you think you're getting isn't what you're going to get, the status quo.
matthewfelgate 6y ago
I'm not sure why people are hating on Facebook more than any other platform. Justified or not? Explanations pleasse.
- throwaway29102 6y ago
  https://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+do+people+hate+facebook https://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+do+people+hate+facebook
- ardy42 6y ago
  > I'm not sure why people are hating on Facebook more than any other platform. Justified or not? Explanations pleasse. This is a big topic, so you really can't expect someone to do your homework for you if you actually want to understand. Long story short Facebook had already shown themselves to be duplicitous and untrustworthy on the user privacy front for more than a decade, then various other dark sides of social media made themselves most evident on Facebook, and Zuckerberg has done a poor job at responding to those challenges.
ThrustVectoring 6y ago
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/group-boycotts https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... This advocacy for a group boycott raises anti-trust concerns, IMO. While it is not aimed at getting price concessions, it is aimed at getting other concessions in terms of the public perception of the context of the advertisements bought. This is a material contractual term, and organizing a group boycott to coerce concessions from Facebook to their business partners seems problematic on anti-trust grounds.
apexalpha 6y ago
Look, I'm not going to lie: I'm not the biggest fan of Facebook and the way it structured it's closed groups or how it allows posts to go 'viral'. I think there's a lot of negativity that comes from 'viral' posts. But does anyone realistically think you could put Facebook in charge of moderating all content in the 500+ or so languages on there? With 3 billion users? It would mean the end of all open communications platforms that we've seen since 2000s.
AngeloAnolin 6y ago
FB executives knows the numbers, and knows how to play them out. They also know how far reaching their platform is, and how well they are able to target the intended customers of the businesses. They have also proven time and again that their targeted ads generate the results these businesses need. Pausing a month or two of ads does not hurt their bottom line. They could simply take a hit on those months and when these businesses go back, they could (again play the numbers) and charge more to recoup those losses. The FB platform has grown so big that they know even if they lose one big business, the same could be replaced by 10 or 100 or even 1000 small businesses which will allow them to simply get the same amount being paid by the big companies.
gdsdfe 6y ago
it shows that when you have a monopoly or a strong moat, you can basically say "fuck you" to your clients in a polite way of course, oh well
b20000 6y ago
'soon enough' hahahhaha
RickJWagner 6y ago
I think it's pretty plain this has to do with politics. It's group-bullying of Facebook. But Zuck's right-- Facebook has a huge audience, and they will keep using the platform. If some advertisers don't want to pay, their competitors will. I hate bullying. I hope Facebook profits out of all this.
IndexPointer 6y ago
My conspiracy theory mind tells me this is just brands doing a show of power to end up paying less for ads. Plus scoring a PR win. The bad part is that it encourages Facebook and others to do more aggressive automatic moderation, which has low precision and deletes accounts of people merely mentioning sensitive topics.

255 points by DarkContinent 6y ago

gruglife 6y ago

It’s so true. At the end of the day, users haven’t abandoned FB and that’s what advertisers care about.

wand3r 6y ago
In some ways they have though, at least in terms of time allocation. When Facebook was in its heyday it was the default social network. They dont seem to be adding as many new users and I suspect they are churning old users. They also have to compete with wechat, twitter, tiktok, reddit, twitch, etc so its not obvious to anyone but facebook how loyal the userbase is. Facebook is becoming less relevant so yes these companies will most likely be back, but what about 5 years? They might not be willing to pay the same rates. Facebook will kind of be like a personal email client that people check occasionally. Facebook.com specifically, Instagram itself will remain popular for a while I would wager.
- ramraj07 6y ago
  Does that make a difference then? Facebook's going to continue tracking the users all the same, their ad formats will just be different
- shripadk 6y ago
  > In some ways they have though, at least in terms of time allocation. When Facebook was in its heyday it was the default social network. They dont seem to be adding as many new users and I suspect they are churning old users. They also have to compete with wechat, twitter, tiktok, reddit, twitch, etc so its not obvious to anyone but facebook how loyal the userbase is. But it has nothing to do with loyalty. It has all to do with algorithms. If Facebook's AI is superior to Twitter, Wechat, TikTok, Reddit and Twitch then advertisers will never leave Facebook. All Facebook needs is 30 seconds of user time to show them ads. Also don't forget the audience network that Facebook has. Are you playing a free game of Ludo on your mobile? You will be shown an ad in between games. That ad is served by Facebook. So it is not even necessary for the user to be on the platform to be shown ads! Now how do you tackle that? Publishers will also have to abandon Facebook. That will not happen so easily. The only way to tackle Facebook is to create an alternative that has at least 50% of the user base that Facebook does and also have an equally good AI Ad platform or superior. > Facebook is becoming less relevant so yes these companies will most likely be back, but what about 5 years? They might not be willing to pay the same rates. Facebook will kind of be like a personal email client that people check occasionally. Facebook.com specifically, Instagram itself will remain popular for a while I would wager. Facebook knows that. That is why they are constantly improving their algos to make it cheaper themselves. Advertisers don't want access to a billion people really. They just need to sell to a few hundred or thousand people to make their profits. Even if Facebook userbase comes down by 50%, if the Facebook AI is half as decent as it claims to be, it will still find the right audience for advertisers to target!
  - maps7 6y ago
    Personal opinion but TikTok's is great. I got sucked in in less than 1 min. I actually think the rest suck, including FB. Reddit has no AI. Netflix's recommendation engine is usually spot on for me but I guess that is less difficult.
    - jquery 6y ago
      TikTok somehow convinced a bunch of young girls to dance in scanty clothes for the enjoyment of the internet for likes and comments. It’s not as bad as it used to be but knowing how they got started, as a de facto child porn production and distribution outlet (imagine if /r/jailbait was a default subreddit when Reddit launched), it’s hard for me to get over that and use TikTok.
      - maps7 6y ago
        When I open TikTok, that is not what I see at all. It's funny videos, sketches, memes that are all pretty relevant to where I live and around current affairs. That said I don't use TikTok (or Instagram, FB etc) so maybe it's more like you're saying.
MagnumPIG 6y ago
Depends which users. A lot of teenagers are "mostly on Instagram" or "only use it for Messenger". And teenagers are apparently an important population to marketers. I know FB owns Instagram but the point is, Facebook as a platform may be past its prime in NA.
- jehlakj 6y ago
  There’s even a meme: Facebook is for boomers. Idk how much of that is true, but apps like Instagram and tiktok are definitely talked about more these days
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Boomers have the money, though. And advertisers like people with money.
    - linuxftw 6y ago
      Smart advertisers, anyway. The older folks make facebook sticky for the younger people too. It might not be their first choice for social media, but they're on there cause extended family are on there. Some people quit facebook, most people don't. There's lots of groups, and now you have market place. It's genuinely useful.
      - neutronicus 6y ago
        Yeah my wife and I (millennials) have both been "Facebook is for Boomers" people in the past, but when I was into competitive card games all the events were organized on Facebook, and now that we have a baby there are all kinds of new parent groups that we use. We still don't really think much of it as a social network but somehow while we weren't looking it pretty much ate Craigslist, Meetup, and Local News so now we're on the platform again. Like if someone has some baby formula they don't need, we find out on Facebook. If somebody gets stabbed at the pizzeria across the street, we find out on Facebook. If there's a card game tournament, I (found) out on Facebook.
  - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
newguy1234 6y ago
Advertisers just go to where the eye balls are at. Facebook has a good moat but places like reddit and twitter don't. There are already clones for both twitter and reddit. Some communities have left reddit and started their own standalone communities. Often times these communities are so tight-knit that most of the users leave the original platform completely. Same story for twitter. People are moving to a new platform called parler.
catacombs 6y ago
> At the end of the day, users haven’t abandoned FB and that’s what advertisers care about. This goes, especially, to older people who couldn't care less and just want an easy platform to post political memes and gossip about the weird guys who come around the neighborhood in big trucks and snatch everyone's garbage from the curb.

wnevets 6y ago

He is 100% correct. These advertisers have gotten millions of dollars in free PR for the "boycott" but that last won't long for most of them.

bennettfeely 6y ago
I really have a hard time believing consumer behavior is affected by these boycotts. Is the average person running to spend more at Starbucks or Hershey or Honda because they temporarily "stood up to Facebook"?
- wnevets 6y ago
  if there is enough news about it, why not? There is a segment of the population upset at starbucks over their holiday cups.
- EForEndeavour 6y ago
  Analogously, does the average person run to spend more at Starbucks or Hershey or Honda because they scrolled past the same ad 10 times in a single day in their Instagram feed?

pphysch 6y ago

Of course they will. The calculus has been done; the marketing boost from saying "we are pulling ads from Facebook (for X weeks)" apparently outweighs the actual value of those weeks of passive Facebook ads. And then things will be back to "business-as-usual" (although outrage marketing is business-as-usual).

shoguning 6y ago

My interpretation of what's going on: CEOs finally have leverage against their marketing departments to do black-out testing on social media ad spend. It's difficult to actually measure impact of ad spending, and marketing teams spin results to their advantage. They will observe what happens and re-introduce spending where it actually works.

pphysch 6y ago
I doubt this very much. Doing black-out testing silently would be just as easy and allow a much greater degree of experimental control.
- ramraj07 6y ago
  Well if it fails, and revenue drops, that would be hard to explain to shareholders right? Especially if the test has to extend for months to be realistic. Now they can at least say it's for a social cause.
  - pphysch 6y ago
    Just blame it on the 'rona or geopolitics.
- shoguning 6y ago
  Maybe? Part of the leverage is going public and saying it's about some principle. For experimental control, executives tend to think simple is better. The more complex, the more room for fudging.
- wand3r 6y ago
  Also, it is being done during one of the craziest markets and climate ever to occur so it would be difficult to really get good numbers.
fourstar 6y ago
Bad take. These companies are using FB as a scapegoat to reduce ad operations during this pandemic/company budget reductions.

Barrin92 6y ago

Of course he's right. If anything I'm surprised advertisers aren't cutting back more given how much revenue they're probably losing during the pandemic. Real change has to come from two sources. Firstly regulation, Facebook will never "self-regulate" and this corporate activism is a joke. And secondly, from employees who in sufficient numbers have at least some leverage.

goodrubyist 6y ago
You do realize that regulating Facebook and other social media companies in order to force them to limit speech on their platforms would expressly violate the First Amendment? And, thank God for 1A, given the enormous amount of interest people have in limiting speech.
- gruez 6y ago
  >You do realize that regulating Facebook and other social media companies in order to force them to limit speech on their platforms would expressly violate the First Amendment? Yet FCC is still around regulating speech on broadcast television.
  - shripadk 6y ago
    Because broadcast media is a publisher. Does Facebook want to call itself a publisher? If it does then I am sure FCC will regulate Facebook too. Right now all social media platforms are shielded by Section 230. They are platforms and not liable to what is posted on their platforms. But, some social media companies like Twitter have taken on the mantle of a publisher by mucking around with the US President's tweets. This has now set a precedent. Tomorrow Trump may or may not be in office. But Twitter will continue to exist. Will it continue to edit/censor Presidents and Prime Ministers around the World? If Twitter acquires those powers for itself without any regulatory oversight then you have an unofficial Supranational Government: Social Media.
    - untog 6y ago
      > Does Facebook want to call itself a publisher? I'm quite sure it doesn't want to call itself one. But once it made an algorithmic feed it decided to have a hand in what users do and do not see. It's not unreasonable to ask for some accountability in what that algorithm does, and such accountability is definitely not a violation of the first amendment. > Will it continue to edit/censor Presidents and Prime Ministers Point of clarification here: Twitter censored and edited absolutely nothing. They attached a warning to Trump's tweet. It is still available for all to read in its entirety.

cultus 6y ago

It will be a moot point soon enough when the ad market crashes.

forgotmypw17 6y ago

Of course they will. All of the "boycotts" but one I've seen were until of the month, and the way it's worded, they probably won't even stop using it, just putting money into their account.

cairoshikobon 6y ago

Last two things I got from FB Ads: "Smart" Wallet in Nov 2019: Never arrived. Owner now keeps posting dramatic posts without issuing anyone a refund. Bamboo Socks: Never arrived. No email after the first order confirmation last year. No nothing.

product50 6y ago
Last 10 things I bought from FB ads. All arrived and our family loves it. Anecdotes are just that - one off instances. What matters is the trend. And a lot of users buy from Facebook Ads and are happy with it. That is why Facebook revenue keeps growing at 25% yoy on a massive base of $70B.
- ianlevesque 6y ago
  HN has gone nuts. Downvoted to oblivion when quoting figures from quarterly reports.
kache_ 6y ago
You don't vehemently boycott everything that is advertised to you? P:
- Kiro 6y ago
  Neither are you. You get brainwashed like the rest of us.
- eaandkw 6y ago
  I tried that for a while. Then I realized I spend most of my time on Twitter, FB, etc. hiding or deleting ads. So I just deleted all of my social media accounts.

mhoad 6y ago

On a related note I just saw someone on Twitter mentioning this report that was just released that does a real deep dive into how the problems associated with hate speech have played out on the ground in India. [1] It's grim reading and I think it is a huge slap in the face to that ridiculous corporate propaganda piece they released the other day saying that they don't profit from hate speech. I'd encourage people to have a read of this, I often see these Facebook threads become extremely abstract and quickly becomes derailed about principles of free speech and the conversation just runs around in circles. Instead this is a very concrete instance of a problem that is really happening and in concerning numbers around the world (i.e. the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar) that is directly aided by Facebook. I want to instead have the conversation about what should we do about this particular problem and it's variations? Should brands factor these kinds of problems into their marketing strategies? [1] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58347d04bebafbb1e66df84c/t/5d018607143f4a000121707e/1560380939010/Facebook_India_Report_Equality_Labs.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58347d04bebafbb1e66df...

higglydiggly 6y ago
This is pretty explicitly the type of speech that doesn't need protection by 1A. The absolutism of it is really an ideal that practically achieved would lead to some ugliness. But I'm wondering how this extends to banning conservatives, conspiracy theory pages, or even jokes? When is it going too far over the line, which is drawn at different points for different people/groups? Because my fear is the government doesn't crackdown like 1984, but the public is convinced there is a much broader definition of wrongthink that people call each other on, leading to less creative expression even if it's offensive (with context) and essentially the same as CCP limitations of speech. For instance I think we're mostly over the days of racial one-liners that are just dumb and play on stereotypes, but how do we convince people still thinking those jokes are appropriate to cease using them? Education and compassion may help in some cases but not all.
- shuntress 6y ago
  Lets start by condemning and removing organized genocide. There is (hopefully) enough space between "actively organizing genocide" and "conservatives, conspiracy theory pages, or even jokes" to allow room for a reasonable line. >how do we convince people still thinking those jokes are appropriate to cease using them By restricting their ability to make those jokes in a way that is clearly tied to the act of making those jokes.

ma2rten 6y ago

I don't know if Zuckerberg is right or not, but his retortic doesn't make it more likely that they will back.

bigdict 6y ago
rhetoric + retort = retortic

the_unknown 6y ago

And yes, he's absolutely correct. Some advertisers such as the big Canadian banks aren't even hiding it now switching from announcing a boycott to a limited-time withdrawal: "Participating brands will suspend all advertising on the platform for the month of July." https://globalnews.ca/news/7129688/facebook-boycott-canada-banks/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7129688/facebook-boycott-canada-b...

paulgb 6y ago
Nobody was ever hiding that the boycott is for July; the call for the boycott says so in the first line. Some companies decided to go for more than a month but that's their choice. > On June 17, Color Of Change along with the NAACP, ADL, Sleeping Giants, Free Press, and Common Sense Media called on Facebook’s advertisers to hit pause on ad spending for July 2020 > https://colorofchange.org/stop-hate-for-profit/ https://colorofchange.org/stop-hate-for-profit/
- wolco 6y ago
  Is there a big list of all of the companies taking part?
  - charliepark 6y ago
    The list is probably longer now, but here's one from late June: https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1276681468119572481 https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1276681468119572481
  - simo_dax 6y ago
    https://www.stophateforprofit.org/participating-businesses https://www.stophateforprofit.org/participating-businesses
    - wolco 6y ago
      Kind of a sad excuse for a list. Can't see it moving the needle where it affects share price.

throwawaysea 6y ago

I hope he doesn’t cave in. All the companies who signed onto the campaign to stop advertising on Facebook are essentially against the fundamental principles freedom of speech and expression. I don’t plan to buy from them any longer, because they’re normalizing censorship.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
He won't cave. If he did, he'd lose, not advertisers, but users. Some fraction of his user base cares about being able to express those opinions.
acallaghan 6y ago
> I don’t plan to buy from them any longer, because they’re normalizing censorship. Go make a right-wing social media site, or join one that exists now. There's people threatening civil war if Trump isn't re-elected, without being challenged or 'censored'. Freedom of speech is from the government, private companies have freedom to choose what they allow, given they also have free speech

jb775 6y ago

As long as companies like making money more than whatever cause they're claiming to care about, Zuckerberg will be proven right.

seebetter 6y ago

Facebook is funny because I generally agree and disagree with everyone. But people make their points so poorly, they have no sense of objectivity or analytical ability, that I’m dismayed by all sides by the lack of a principled approach. 90% of what people post about is a distraction and futile. I wish Facebook could motivate and inform people to attend local government meetings. Instead, it’s like an interactive tabloid magazine that we’re embedded in. We’re on the shelf in a Rite-Aid living in a world of ridiculousness as corporations pass by us and sell us stuff. 24 hours a day.

vorpalhex 6y ago
The goal isn't to confer change, it's to increase platform interactions. The best way to do that is to give you content that inspires strong emotions whether it's uplifting positivity or partisan hate. The entire reason to have reposts is for high-interaction content to get more traction while your Aunt Sally posting food pictures gets ignored. If Aunt Sally posts something divisive that gets lots of angry emoji faces and angry comments, then that will tend to spread more on the platform.
airstrike 6y ago
More people need to read The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck https://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Art-Not-Giving-Counterintuitive/dp/0062457713 https://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Art-Not-Giving-Counterintuitiv...
- catacombs 6y ago
  The book is terrible. Mark Manson is terrible. Yes, by all means people should read, but not this. There is plenty of good literature, especially fiction, that doles out the same advice but in more tactful manner, rather than the writings of a guy's lifetime of good fortune.
  - airstrike 6y ago
    > The book is terrible. Mark Manson is terrible. Ad hominem. > There is plenty of good literature Never claimed otherwise, and it's not a zero-sum game. > especially fiction Sure, but different strokes for different folks, and there's something to be said about the directness of a self-help book vs. fiction. > that doles out the same advice but in more tactful manner His blunt voice is precisely why many find the book valuable. It cuts to the chase. The title itself makes it clear that this is what you'll get, so opening the book expecting otherwise would be nonsensical. > rather the writings of a guy's lifetime of good fortune His good fortune has no bearing on the value of his ideas. Again an ad hominem.

op03 6y ago

Zuck is busy trying ensure his best employees aren't running for the hills. Too late man too late. It's already happening.

sfpoet 6y ago
Yeah, if recruiters are tagging the least interested in tech in my contacts, then I know it's a ship going down. Acqui-hire is their only way to replenish the talent pool, now.
- djohnston 6y ago
  Are you saying fb is tagging non tech people for jobs?
  - sfpoet 6y ago
    I didn't want to be rude and say, "least talented people." Here I'm equating least interested with least talented.

sfpoet 6y ago

All I can do is imagine Jesse Eisenberg saying this. There are other channels you can push your spend through with decent ROI. Nobody's platform be it a personal blog or small app is without analytics anymore. Shorting Facebook: FB 210p 7/10

xfour 6y ago
2:10pm 7/10/2020?
- qvrjuec 6y ago
  I think he means he's buying put options at 210 expiring on 7/10
- greenshackle2 6y ago
  Don't know if you're joking, but it's Facebook put option with strike price of $210 expiring on 7/10, in other words, betting that the stock price of FB will be less than $210 by July 10 - current price is $235, so that would be down ~10%.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
anm89 6y ago
Is it really necessary to announce that you've taken a specific position. Should we all layout all of our related positions on every post about a company? This doesn't belong here.
- djohnston 6y ago
  I think it's good to disclose financial interests if you're making a point about a company, like disclosing if you are an employee.
- 6y ago

ben85ts 6y ago

potential ad free alternative https://userheist.com https://userheist.com

actuator 6y ago

I am neither a FB user, employee or stockholder. FB has taken a lot of steps which I would not support personally; but how likely would it be for FB's bad policies to get more fanned by the old media(newspapers, news TV channels, influential blogs) because they have an axe to grind here. FB essentially disrupted the whole business model of old media and commoditizes old media entities. FB acts as a middleman, eats up revenue share and weakens the brand-user relationship, something no old media company will like.

ankit219 6y ago

Facebook has a long tail of 8 million advertisers (according to their earnings report).Some of the big ones leaving would mean that the relatively smaller ones would get better returns on spend (due to fewer bidders and lower top bid) and in turn spend more. This does help the brands get a bit of free PR at Facebook's expense, given that many of them would have been planning to reduce the spend anyway due to Covid.

darawk 6y ago
Yep. This is just a few big companies finding a clever way to get free marketing out of a decision to cut their marketing budgets due to the pandemic.
sharkmerry 6y ago
By that same token, how big are the companies at the end of the tail? If large corporations are cutting marketing budgets, small shops on tighter budgets probably are as well
- linuxftw 6y ago
  If you have a positive ROI on marketing, and prices go down, you increase spend. Big brands cutting spend on positive ROI is probably foolish, especially if it lets your competitors increase their ROI. For brands like pepsi that don't sell online, then it's just a cost center.
- ankit219 6y ago
  Its the volume that makes up for that. Top 100 adverstisers on Facebook make up less than 20% of the total advertising revenue. So, a lot of other subscribers make up a major chunk, and if they increase spend even slightly (given better ROI) Facebook will have a net gain. Not every other guy would have a tighter budget. Companies like a gaming company, a streaming platform, home delivery, edtech, telemedicine, D2C brands to name a few are the ones which have increased their budget during these times. Adding that to the fact they get better ROI on Facebook ads mean they will end up spending more (and getting more value in return).
6y ago

legitster 6y ago

I work in marketing. Advertising markets are pretty damned efficient. If a bunch of advertisers pull out, rates come down, new advertisers come in. There may be some affect, especially if big companies were spending inefficiently to build "awareness". But at the end of the day, the market rate for a click is the market rate. Someone will pay for it.

sfpoet 6y ago
If that were true, then why aren't frequencies capped for most campaigns run on-line?
- legitster 6y ago
  I don't think I understand this question. Why doesn't Facebook limit the number of impressions? I assume the premise is that fewer ads will be worth more? Again, the ad market is insanely efficient and competitive. Restricted supply doesn't correlate with increased prices. If 1000 impressions is worth $20 to me, and it costs $30 on Facebook, I can take my money elsewhere. I don't even need to push a button, I have software that could automatically change my budget minute to minute.
  - reilly3000 6y ago
    More inventory means more chances to sell something to an advertiser. That is why they go to such great lengths to build massive data centers with gigantic digital brains to figure out how to optimize session depth, impressions/user, watch time, etc. Buyers are not able to pay beyond their profit margin, so increased rates just means they cut budget and look somewhere else.
  - sfpoet 6y ago
    Let me explain it another way. As a user, I often see the same ad 100s of times. Yes, 100s. On most ad software, you can set it so that the user sees it maybe 3 times. The fact that I see an ad 100s of times means that the ad market is inefficient. Maybe the competition for that ad space is efficient, but from a user POV, advertisers are wasting time and space.

CogentHedgehog 6y ago

Facebook is taking a firm stance NOW. But I imagine they will end up singing a different tune if enough companies join the boycott to drop their ad revenues by 20%. Cuts in ad buys directly hurt their profits, because ad sellers (and data collection firms) are their primary customers. Users are just a commodity that enables Facebook to sell ads and harvest data.

12xo 6y ago

If Facebook was a bar, would you go there? Would you hang out there? I wouldnt.

gbolcer 6y ago

He should just ban them for a year.

gbolcer 6y ago

He should just ban them for a year just to see what their reaction is.

anm89 6y ago
That would be amazing to watch.
lallysingh 6y ago
Maybe let's wait to see how the anti-trust conversation goes first.
- ThrustVectoring 6y ago
  If you're looking for anti-trust conversations, "let's all collaborate to stop doing business with Facebook" looks a lot more like an illegal combination in restraint of trade.

MangoCoffee 6y ago

even if big Corps stop advertising on FB. they will pay for FB's massive data.

cik 6y ago

Whilst companies have discussed pulling out of Facebook, for the most part they're neither discussing, nor implementing exits from Instagram. As Instagram makes up an increasing amount of Facebook's revenue, the reality is that they're rather unconcerned. This is part of the cycle.

baxtr 6y ago

Of course they will. It's called performance marketing for a reason. You can track your marketing invest down to the penny. Who cares if they're evil. I believe that this is mostly a small little kindle that will burn out soon, and not a huge wildfire for Facebook.

cm2012 6y ago

Here's the business case why advertisers wouldn't want to enter the boycott, beyond just losing their fb sales: 1) Facebook has had a number of negative sounding news cycles in the past few years (Cambridge Analytica, etc.), and data shows that the average American hasn't changed their behavior based on them. 70% of all Americans and Canadians use Facebook or Instagram at least once a month, and 55% of all Americans and Canadians use it at least once per day. Facebook's monthly and daily user counts have only grown. 2) Facebook has done a better job than many in blocking hate speech. They can always do better, but I'd be worried about scope creep. If Facebook makes changes that the boycott organizers don't think are enough, it could make advertisers in the boycott a target if they start spending on FB again later. One key risk is if the boycott demands they start deleting Trump's posts, like Twitter did. If that happens, it would potentially put any boycotters in an unpleasant media cycle. 3) Most of the advertisers joining so far are companies that either are progressive at their roots (Patagonia, Ben & Jerry's, The North Face) or want to cut ad spend in a COVID environment anyway (Verizon, Unilever). For instance, Unilever is also pausing Twitter ads, which has nothing to do with the boycott. 4) Right now the general public does not associate most companies with FB ads. Joining the list will remind people who are passionate about this issue that their company does FB ads at all, which they don't currently think about. So all the above combined makes me conclude that joining the boycott offers few advantages, but presents real risks.

Alex3917 6y ago
> it would potentially put any boycotters in an unpleasant media cycle. That's already happening anyway, look at Ryan and Saagar today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQICXcPBG8c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQICXcPBG8c

saos 6y ago

I actually hope not.

ricardo81 6y ago

And he has reason to be optimistic. As per the UK's recent review into competition, 80% of online advertising spend in the UK at least, is spent with Google and Facebook [0] So, perhaps in his mind it hurts them more than it hurts Facebook [0] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-regime-needed-to-take-on-tech-giants https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-regime-needed-to-take...

jb775 6y ago

If my direct competition is partaking in this boycott, I'm doubling down on my facebook ad-spend. Great opportunity to steal customers from your competition while they are worried about posturing.

willcipriano 6y ago
You'd probably be able to cut your ad spend in half and get the same result if the niche is small enough. If only you are buying ad spots for Amish chocolate teapot fans all of the sudden I imagine the price goes down quickly.

zelphirkalt 6y ago

Such a statement shows, that he still has learned nothing, specifically not responsibility. For Zuckerberg it needs to financially hurt, in order to cause ethical decisions. Well, such kind of statement will hopefully also prolong the boykott, because no one will want to seem like the beaten dog, beaten. ack into line. Hopefully the boykott will even increase.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
Maybe the ask was just too big. If someone bashed me relentlessly over media, I too would be trying to mollify the mob.. but not at any price.
devalgo 6y ago
>For Zuckerberg it needs to financially hurt, in order to cause ethical decisions. Hasn't he lost ~$6B in net worth because of this?
- philg_jr 6y ago
  So he is worth $82B now? Do you think he really loses sleep over that? He knows this is temporary and the stock will most likely bounce back.
- esoterica 6y ago
  He did when FB's stock fell from $242 to $216 a couple days ago. Now it's back up to $234, so you do the math.
- globular-toast 6y ago
  He hasn't really lost anything. Even if he was planning to liquidate all of his stock right now, and assuming he could sell it all at the current market rate, what do you think could really be bought for $6 billion? They are just numbers at this level. He hasn't lost anything tangible.
  - devalgo 6y ago
    By that logic it's impossible for him to lose anything tangible so OP's comment is pointless.

someluccc 6y ago

The cool thing about facebook’s highly targeted advertising is that it balances the ad market in favor of niche players vs. generalists, which also means they have a long long tail of millions of small buyers vs. a few huge ones who used to dominate traditional media. Old marketing was carpetbombing, which meant only those with B-52 sized budgets could dominate. It was also deeply entwined with centralized high-volume distribution models, aligning the interests of big manufactures and big retailers. Today’s marketing is precision bombing. You just need the right explosion in the right place. Likewise, internet distribution enables the economics of small manufacturers and small retailers (shopify/amz third-party). Which is why big advertisers have done relatively poorly with internet ads. Their prior campaigns worked, not so much because they or the product were good, but because they could silence small competitors. Because retailers could only carry a limited amount of products they would favor the big mfgs who could provide bulk orders. Consumers just went for them because they had no other choice. Today small player’s can advertise to narrow niches where rates are low. Likewise consumers can access products that better suit their specific needs/wants. What this means is that FB doesn’t really need or depend on big budget advertisers. Mark knows this.

msla 6y ago
> Today’s marketing is precision bombing. You just need the right explosion in the right place. Likewise, the internet enables the economies of small manufacturers and small retailers (shopify/amz third-party). It's direct mail and it's nothing new. It was annoying decades ago, it's even more annoying now, because it's better-targeted, to the point it's effectively surveillance. Carpet-bombing advertising is brand advertising: It's somewhat annoying, but it doesn't track you.
- someluccc 6y ago
  Direct mail is to FB ads what chariots are to a Ferrari. You can pay facebook to target any of 1.7 Billion people with 0 research on your end. You can automate a campaign for reach/effectiveness. Your budget can be whatever you want it to be. You can get instant feedback and adjust accordingly. FB adds are expensive because people click on them. They click on them because they are useful. They are also minimally intrusive: just scroll past, no click to close, no have to watch, no site ruining banners. I for one, actually like FB ads: they show things I may want or need, often with a discount or some other benefit.

spicyramen 6y ago

My take is that since many people increase their cellphone usage, some renown brands do not need advertising as they may already seen increase in online sales, hence could be a good reason to cut in ads and be politically correct

smashah 6y ago

I predict that Facebook will do a huge OOH campaign squeezing the other co's to come back to Facebook

ucha 6y ago

There is this very good article of Ben Thompson [1] predicting that Zuckerberg won't budge: 1/ large advertisers represent a small portion of FB's ad revenue 2/ if large advertisers leave and price of ads fall, other "social media ad-dependent businesses" will pick up the slack because they can measure very well their advertising return on investment thus driving the price of ads back up. [1] https://stratechery.com/2020/apple-and-facebook/ https://stratechery.com/2020/apple-and-facebook/

will_pseudonym 6y ago

Advertisers certainly will be back, because their public support for the cause du jour is simply a rational decision to make money/avoid losing money. When established corporations support your cause, you should be worried, because what you think you're getting isn't what you're going to get, the status quo.

matthewfelgate 6y ago

I'm not sure why people are hating on Facebook more than any other platform. Justified or not? Explanations pleasse.

throwaway29102 6y ago
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+do+people+hate+facebook https://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+do+people+hate+facebook
ardy42 6y ago
> I'm not sure why people are hating on Facebook more than any other platform. Justified or not? Explanations pleasse. This is a big topic, so you really can't expect someone to do your homework for you if you actually want to understand. Long story short Facebook had already shown themselves to be duplicitous and untrustworthy on the user privacy front for more than a decade, then various other dark sides of social media made themselves most evident on Facebook, and Zuckerberg has done a poor job at responding to those challenges.

ThrustVectoring 6y ago

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/group-boycotts https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... This advocacy for a group boycott raises anti-trust concerns, IMO. While it is not aimed at getting price concessions, it is aimed at getting other concessions in terms of the public perception of the context of the advertisements bought. This is a material contractual term, and organizing a group boycott to coerce concessions from Facebook to their business partners seems problematic on anti-trust grounds.

apexalpha 6y ago

Look, I'm not going to lie: I'm not the biggest fan of Facebook and the way it structured it's closed groups or how it allows posts to go 'viral'. I think there's a lot of negativity that comes from 'viral' posts. But does anyone realistically think you could put Facebook in charge of moderating all content in the 500+ or so languages on there? With 3 billion users? It would mean the end of all open communications platforms that we've seen since 2000s.

AngeloAnolin 6y ago

FB executives knows the numbers, and knows how to play them out. They also know how far reaching their platform is, and how well they are able to target the intended customers of the businesses. They have also proven time and again that their targeted ads generate the results these businesses need. Pausing a month or two of ads does not hurt their bottom line. They could simply take a hit on those months and when these businesses go back, they could (again play the numbers) and charge more to recoup those losses. The FB platform has grown so big that they know even if they lose one big business, the same could be replaced by 10 or 100 or even 1000 small businesses which will allow them to simply get the same amount being paid by the big companies.

gdsdfe 6y ago

it shows that when you have a monopoly or a strong moat, you can basically say "fuck you" to your clients in a polite way of course, oh well

b20000 6y ago

'soon enough' hahahhaha

RickJWagner 6y ago

I think it's pretty plain this has to do with politics. It's group-bullying of Facebook. But Zuck's right-- Facebook has a huge audience, and they will keep using the platform. If some advertisers don't want to pay, their competitors will. I hate bullying. I hope Facebook profits out of all this.

IndexPointer 6y ago

My conspiracy theory mind tells me this is just brands doing a show of power to end up paying less for ads. Plus scoring a PR win. The bad part is that it encourages Facebook and others to do more aggressive automatic moderation, which has low precision and deletes accounts of people merely mentioning sensitive topics.