5 ms·

Is it just me or does $3000 seem like a really cheap price for the Dallas Mavericks to reach 1M+ fans? Would it make any significant difference to their marketi

Is it just me or does $3000 seem like a really cheap price for the Dallas Mavericks to reach 1M+ fans? Would it make any significant difference to their marketing budget if the price were cut to $1000 or doubled to $6000?

bluetidepro 14y ago
I had the same thought. Think of when you go to an NBA game and they give out some sort of "freebie". I would imagine those game "freebies" cost much more than $3000, and regardless of that, with Facebook you are potentially reaching the 1M+ fans where as those game "freebies" might only be handed out to a measly 5K. It seems like a no-brainer to use Facebook to reach 1M+ fans at that price, vs what they traditionally pay for other forms of marketing. Also, you could easily be selective on what sort of post validates for a $3K (post) promotion. Not all posts are worth promoting to every one of your fans, doing so would just weaken the brand image (in my eyes).
- patrickk 14y ago
  The problem is that you got that reach before for free. It's the change that's upset people. If Twitter started charging companies for tweeting there would be a similar backlash. People feel betrayed by a company desperate for new revenue.
  - bluetidepro 14y ago
    Yeah, very true. That makes much more sense why people are upset. However, I still think they should just take a step back and just look at the cost of more "traditional" alternatives that, what it seems like, are never even questioned for their price to value ratio. An extreme example would be how the Ford Explorer launch on Facebook generated more traffic than a Super Bowl ad [1]. [1] http://www.socialsyntax.net/2012/02/facebook-trumped-super-bowl-ads-but-marketing-integration-is-the-key/ http://www.socialsyntax.net/2012/02/facebook-trumped-super-b...
spinchange 14y ago
What was the "acquisition cost" of those 1M+ Facebook fans (likes)? Ostensibly, this is "double dipping" on the part of Facebook from the perspective of businesses and brands who've been marketing their FB presence in aims of adding subscribers they can reach.
- pejoculant 14y ago
  Regardless of what they paid, its already been spent and its likely that Facebook did not see much of that anyway. Even if they were to move to another social network out of spite they'd still have to pay that acquisition cost again and more since that network will be much smaller making it harder to drive more likes/follows/whatevers there.
at-fates-hands 14y ago
Considering a few weeks ago, you could 1M Facebook users information for $5, I'd say 3K is pretty expensive.
pgeorgi 14y ago
One of the complaints in the article is that it's billed per message. $3000 is a bit much for some low level employee in the social media department to sign off while pushing ads. I guess any kind of prepaid arrangement (with some reasonable quotas, or upfront costs + small price per post) would be more manageable.

bluetidepro 14y ago

I had the same thought. Think of when you go to an NBA game and they give out some sort of "freebie". I would imagine those game "freebies" cost much more than $3000, and regardless of that, with Facebook you are potentially reaching the 1M+ fans where as those game "freebies" might only be handed out to a measly 5K. It seems like a no-brainer to use Facebook to reach 1M+ fans at that price, vs what they traditionally pay for other forms of marketing. Also, you could easily be selective on what sort of post validates for a $3K (post) promotion. Not all posts are worth promoting to every one of your fans, doing so would just weaken the brand image (in my eyes).

patrickk 14y ago
The problem is that you got that reach before for free. It's the change that's upset people. If Twitter started charging companies for tweeting there would be a similar backlash. People feel betrayed by a company desperate for new revenue.
- bluetidepro 14y ago
  Yeah, very true. That makes much more sense why people are upset. However, I still think they should just take a step back and just look at the cost of more "traditional" alternatives that, what it seems like, are never even questioned for their price to value ratio. An extreme example would be how the Ford Explorer launch on Facebook generated more traffic than a Super Bowl ad [1]. [1] http://www.socialsyntax.net/2012/02/facebook-trumped-super-bowl-ads-but-marketing-integration-is-the-key/ http://www.socialsyntax.net/2012/02/facebook-trumped-super-b...

spinchange 14y ago

What was the "acquisition cost" of those 1M+ Facebook fans (likes)? Ostensibly, this is "double dipping" on the part of Facebook from the perspective of businesses and brands who've been marketing their FB presence in aims of adding subscribers they can reach.

pejoculant 14y ago
Regardless of what they paid, its already been spent and its likely that Facebook did not see much of that anyway. Even if they were to move to another social network out of spite they'd still have to pay that acquisition cost again and more since that network will be much smaller making it harder to drive more likes/follows/whatevers there.

at-fates-hands 14y ago

Considering a few weeks ago, you could 1M Facebook users information for $5, I'd say 3K is pretty expensive.

pgeorgi 14y ago

One of the complaints in the article is that it's billed per message. $3000 is a bit much for some low level employee in the social media department to sign off while pushing ads. I guess any kind of prepaid arrangement (with some reasonable quotas, or upfront costs + small price per post) would be more manageable.