3 ms·

Ads in google are pretty damn effective for everyone who is using them Possible, but don't forget Google has nearly a decade on Facebook in that arena. With th

by orijing 15y ago

Ads in google are pretty damn effective for everyone who is using them Possible, but don't forget Google has nearly a decade on Facebook in that arena. With that amount of time, most of those advertisers who found it to be ineffective would have stopped using the service, so it is a selection-bias issue. In comparison, Facebook's relatively new. With enough time, Facebook ads will become comparatively effective for everyone on them, as people learn how to use them better, as Facebook adds more ads features, and as those with the wrong business or advertising model pull back and try something new. Edit: What is it with Hacker News being so antagonistic when someone defends Facebook against an unjust assault? If Facebook were Google and Google were Facebook, I would have said the same thing: Time allows advertisers to adjust their advertising strategies and platforms such that, in equilibrium, you wouldn't be using the platform that is ineffective and hence those who still use a platform are probably finding it effective. This is not a matter of Facebook fanboyism, but one of selection in market equilibria. It's like asking a buyer of some particular brand of tofus whether they like the tofu. Well, they wouldn't buy it from that brand if they didn't, so hearing a majority of "yes" doesn't say so much.

il 15y ago
The time frame doesn't matter too much, there is a fundamental difference between intent based advertising and interruption advertising. CPMs for social networks will always be lower because there are so many more pageviews per user, and the user isn't searching for anything or in a buying mood.
- orijing 15y ago
  But effectiveness isn't about the number of clicks you get, but ultimately the value you derive from the impression (and the probability of a click). If advertisers get 30% less out of Facebook ads but it costs 30% less, then the effectiveness is comparable.
  - il 15y ago
    It's comparable for the advertiser, but it's not good for Facebook. Their inability to get higher CPMs for their traffic is a big problem for them.
    - orijing 15y ago
      OK, I see what you mean. I was speaking from the perspective of the advertiser.
- alain94040 15y ago
  You have been brainwashed by Google AdWords for too long, which is normal, since it had been the only game in town for 10 years. Facebook ads work (http://blog.fairsoftware.net/2011/04/01/sell-your-google-stock-like-right-now-adwords-data/ http://blog.fairsoftware.net/2011/04/01/sell-your-google-sto...). Yes, intent-based advertising converts better. But that's irrelevent. In Google's limited view of the world, life starts when the customer is looking for your product. As an advertiser on Facebook, I can raise awareness for my product first, then convert those people who are interested. So when you look at CPC or CPM on Facebook, keep in mind that you derive two values from your ads: awareness and intent. Google only does intent, so their CPC numbers look "better" but it's a misperception.
beagle3 15y ago
FB had already managed to get the people from Google, and that's (so far) hadn't gotten the expected result. So, as you mention, it is time for the advertisers to adjust. They might, and FB will be happy -- but if we can learn from RTB - the "intent to buy" (or "intent to act" in general) is worth some 80-90% of the impression value. So FB is potentially running in neutral until they can manufacture that.

by orijing 15y ago

il 15y ago

The time frame doesn't matter too much, there is a fundamental difference between intent based advertising and interruption advertising. CPMs for social networks will always be lower because there are so many more pageviews per user, and the user isn't searching for anything or in a buying mood.

orijing 15y ago
But effectiveness isn't about the number of clicks you get, but ultimately the value you derive from the impression (and the probability of a click). If advertisers get 30% less out of Facebook ads but it costs 30% less, then the effectiveness is comparable.
- il 15y ago
  It's comparable for the advertiser, but it's not good for Facebook. Their inability to get higher CPMs for their traffic is a big problem for them.
  - orijing 15y ago
    OK, I see what you mean. I was speaking from the perspective of the advertiser.
alain94040 15y ago
You have been brainwashed by Google AdWords for too long, which is normal, since it had been the only game in town for 10 years. Facebook ads work (http://blog.fairsoftware.net/2011/04/01/sell-your-google-stock-like-right-now-adwords-data/ http://blog.fairsoftware.net/2011/04/01/sell-your-google-sto...). Yes, intent-based advertising converts better. But that's irrelevent. In Google's limited view of the world, life starts when the customer is looking for your product. As an advertiser on Facebook, I can raise awareness for my product first, then convert those people who are interested. So when you look at CPC or CPM on Facebook, keep in mind that you derive two values from your ads: awareness and intent. Google only does intent, so their CPC numbers look "better" but it's a misperception.

beagle3 15y ago

FB had already managed to get the people from Google, and that's (so far) hadn't gotten the expected result. So, as you mention, it is time for the advertisers to adjust. They might, and FB will be happy -- but if we can learn from RTB - the "intent to buy" (or "intent to act" in general) is worth some 80-90% of the impression value. So FB is potentially running in neutral until they can manufacture that.