3 ms·
Hi, I'm an engineer from Facebook's ads team. I worked on ads for Timeline. The article's unsubstantiated premise is that Facebook releases products solely wit
by orijing 15y ago
Hi, I'm an engineer from Facebook's ads team. I worked on ads for Timeline.
The article's unsubstantiated premise is that Facebook releases products solely with its bottom line in mind. Based on my experience working on ads for Timeline, I'd say that this is antithetical to our nature. We optimized timeline for user experience (engagement) and released it not because of its impact to our bottom line but DESPITE that.
If you aren't convinced, look at the ads on Timeline, and compare to Profile. There were on average four ads per Profile page. Now there's two. People also click away a lot faster on Profile (because there's less content), but people now scroll around and navigate within Timeline. Photos are bigger, we show a lot more content. The resources to support these new products are expensive. If this doesn't illustrate our focus on engagement over our bottom line, color me surprised.
Just another point I wanted to clarify: Whenever money changed hands, even for organic content like sponsored stories, they are clearly labeled "Sponsored." If you don't see Sponsored, there was no optimization for revenue, because no money changed hands.
Ultimately, I think the author is exploiting a confusion between news feed and timeline. Sure, we will experiment with sponsoring organic content in news feed (max one), but they will be clearly labeled and things you can already see.
I just wanted to clarify a few issues that the author is either truly confused about, or is aware of but intentionally exploiting. I hope this helped.
If you have any questions I can answer, I'll be happy to clarify.
- ktusznio 15y agoJust because Timeline shows fewer ads doesn't mean that net ad revenue doesn't come out ahead. Sponsored stories just need to make up for those 3 missing ads, which they almost surely will. Optimizing for user engagement, when you make money off of ads, is optimizing for the bottom line by definition. To claim otherwise is disingenuous at best.
- orijing 15y ago> Optimizing for user engagement, when you make money off of ads, is optimizing for the bottom line by definition. To claim otherwise is disingenuous at best. Well, optimizing for f(x) (revenue) is different than optimizing for g(x) (engagement), which is related to f(x), and claiming that we are objectively optimizing for f(x). Not sure if that makes sense, but you are right that it is to our long term interest to optimize for user engagement, not because it necessarily optimizes our revenue, but it optimizes our value for users. That's not the same as optimizing for revenue directly, though, so calling that "disingenuous at best" is a little misguided.
- groovecoder 15y agoI'll attest to this. When I worked for SourceForge.net we removed tons of ads only AFTER a/b testing showed that fewer more prominent (i.e., "engaging") ads increase click-thru and revenue.
- groovecoder 15y agoI'd like to know - on what non-advertising models is Facebook working?