This whole thing seems fishy to me. Facebook is one of my best sources of traffic. It's cheaper than AdWords, I can do keyword, demo, and geo targeting all buil

This whole thing seems fishy to me. Facebook is one of my best sources of traffic. It's cheaper than AdWords, I can do keyword, demo, and geo targeting all built in. And if I have a hit campaign, it's pretty easily scalable. If you tie it into specific performance, like $ / email sign up, or $ / pageview, it blows away adwords. Getting in touch with someone from Facebook can be a pain, but it's drastically easier than AdWords or other ad networks. This whole thing seems like one big linkbait/PR play. It's a really big claim from a company that doesn't even have an about us page, has only 500 Facebook likes, and basically has 0 traffic.[1] I'd like to know if they have tried other paid traffic sources, or have concrete evidence. Inexperienced advertisers tend to spend $50-$100, expecting instant results. And when it inevitably doesn't work out, they blame anyone and everyone. The second point seems way exaggerated. Facebook isn't "holding your name hostage" and being "scumbags". You didn't sign up with the right name from the beginning, and now you're complaining. You could have told the ad rep that you'll do $2,000 budget at some point, just change the url now. You could have also taken the 5 minutes to sign up for a Facebook Page with name@limitedrun.com and get the page you want. With only 500 facebook likes, the switching cost is low. [1] http://siteanalytics.compete.com/limitedrun.com/ http://siteanalytics.compete.com/limitedrun.com/ https://www.facebook.com/limitedpressing https://www.facebook.com/limitedpressing http://who.is/whois/limitedrun.com/ http://who.is/whois/limitedrun.com/