6 ms·
"The problem I think is that a lot of advertisers, especially smaller ones, wouldn't want to risk pissing Facebook off with a lawsuit. Plus even if Facebook mis
by indymike 6y ago
"The problem I think is that a lot of advertisers, especially smaller ones, wouldn't want to risk pissing Facebook off with a lawsuit. Plus even if Facebook misleads advertisers in a way that results in them spending more money than they otherwise would...the fact is, Facebook could likely double or triple their current prices and those same advertisers would still pay it because they have no choice."
If the ads don't work, or do not deliver enough results for the price, the advertiser will take their spend somewhere else.
- davidivadavid 6y agoThis simple mechanism seems to escape a lot of people, it seems. Anyone moderately familiar with a concept like ROAS, even with its limitations, should be able to avoid making such wrongheaded arguments.
- bluGill 6y agoThe big advertisers are doing this. They know their real numbers because they track results. They don't care what facebook reports, they care about results vs costs. If between fraud and ads that don't work only 1% of the ads result in a customer, then the cost to get a customer is 100 times the cost to get an impression: from there is is easy math to decide if that is a worthwhile cost of sale to buy all 100 ads to reach 1 customer. If FB would/could cut down on fraud the cost of sales would go down making their ads more valuable.