5 ms·

The Free Marketing Gravy Train Is Over on Facebook

56 points by sgy 13y ago

vacri 13y ago
Ambiguous headline: 'over' meaning 'finished'? Or 'over' meaning 'located'? Veritasium has an interesting related video explaining some of the Facebook shennanigans where they withhold your posts from a large amount of your subscribers if you're popular, unless you pay them money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g
- sgy 13y ago
  finished.
  - vacri 13y ago
    My point probably wasn't very clear - in a summary of article headlines, this one would be a little ambiguous. It may be intentional, but it doesn't feel like it.
    - sgy 13y ago
      They better meant "finished"
philip1209 13y ago
This sounds reasonable and similar to the LinkedIn monetization strategy. The core competency of Facebook is communication, not ads, so making money on communication is ideal.
- beedogs 13y ago
  Ideal? Not at all. All it's doing is driving down the signal-to-noise ratio on Facebook, because the only things that can afford to throw bad money after bad money to reach users are massive corporations.
notastartup 13y ago
This almost seems like desperation. Time is ticking, earnings need to be delivered, one quick heist after another, with user base dropping, people adverse to being a marketing dataset.
neotek 13y ago
People are quick to paint this as Facebook twisting the screw, but do we know definitively, not speculatively, that this is an intentional and planned effect, like there's some variable somewhere that determines what percentage of a page's fans will see a post before it stops being shown? Why can't it just be due to the growth of Facebook? There's more content competing for eyeballs, the way consumers engage with Facebook has probably changed over time, people may be following more pages than they used to, and so on.
- davidgerard 13y ago
  A musician friend on FB friend notes that posts containing the words "song" or "music" or that link to Soundcloud appear to get badly downvoted by the algorithm in casual tests he's done. So anecdote, but not completely untested anecdote. Possible workaround: put your s*ngs on Youtube.
rebel 13y ago
This was ultimately a massive bait and switch and I can't believe more people don't find it disgusting. Facebook gave off the impression you would be able to reach people who became your fan on their network.. until they didn't need any more free marketing. Now that everyone is on Facebook, they've decided to focus on the user experience more and leave all the brands who promoted them out in the cold. It would be one thing if they were charging all along, or made that intention clear. Instead they took all the free marketing and slowly scaled down how many of your fans saw your posts (frog in boiling water?). It's to the point now where I have pages that reach .1% of my fans. Facebook now wants thousands of dollars for just ONE post to reach a significant portion (not even all) of my fan base. Ultimately, I don't think Facebook had a choice. The user experience, with the amount of pages some people like, would be horrendous. But to spend any time or money to try to build a fan page on Facebook now would be a joke. Anyone currently spending their advertising dollars to buy likes on Facebook is terribly misinformed on the impact it will have (none). Additionally, it seems many of the major brands I've seen advertising via print, TV, etc. have been only promoting their Twitter accounts now. I have to assume this is a reaction to Facebook burning them and now they are trying to make Twitter a larger threat to Facebook.
- saurik 13y ago
  > Ultimately, I don't think Facebook had a choice. The user experience, with the amount of pages some people like, would be horrendous. If someone doesn't like the content from a Page they follow, they should unfollow it: I specifically follow the things I do because I want to see their content... it does not improve the user experience to limit that content; if anything, it destroys the user experience, as the reason I go to Facebook is to see the content from the people and brands I like: showing me less of the stuff I like leaves me disappointed and unsatisfied.
  - s3r3nity 13y ago
    The real issue here is creating an algorithm that optimizes what you like best: friend content, page content, and/or games/apps/etc. I would guess the majority of the population has higher engagement with friend content then page content, which is why their algorithms show pages less and less. Not necessarily a malicious "bait and switch" (because that implies forethought, which I am highly skeptical was the case if you worked in a tech company in the valley for more than 3 months) but rather not providing the best solution for an algorithmic news feed.
camus2 13y ago
> But if the brands, organizations and celebrities that use Pages want to continue to reach Facebook’s 1.23 billion monthly users in the future, they’re going to have to pay up. The free lunch is over. Next, paid developer apis...
- ohashi 13y ago
  Suddenly buying up any potential competitor at any price doesn't seem too crazy. Give them no options, then they have to pay!
dhawalhs 13y ago
This is what I am seeing with my FB page. Over a year ago with with fewer likes I was able to reach more people. With almost 18,000 likes, I can barely reach a thousand people now. The funny part is if a post is doing well, FB will suggest you to advertise the post since its getting "higher than usual engagement".
- NoodleIncident 13y ago
  You seem to hate the decisions they've made, and are quoting that to show how bad it is. To me, though, that sounds like a dream marketing platform; one where you only have to pay for ads that do well, because you can push them for free to a small sample of your audience to test them. Another possibility: if FB ever gets any good at figuring out from the content of a post who will like it, then a benevolent FB could show each post of yours to the 10% of your audience who actually wants to see it, but not spam them with the other 90%, which would make them stop following your page.
  - robryan 13y ago
    I think it is more akin to building a 18k email marketing list and then having to pay a fee for each subsequent email you sent to them.
lingben 13y ago
in case you haven't watched these videos from Veritasium yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag both videos show why facebook's model is inherently self-destructive and incoherent and will inevitably implode
beedogs 13y ago
All this means is that you'll see more dumb ads for Coke and Sony and no posts from your friend's small fitness blog or charity. Which means Facebook will become increasingly cold and impersonal, like any other corporate entity.
- Dale1 13y ago
  Yep, pretty much :(
steven2012 13y ago
This to me sounds really self-defeating. If none of your non-paid posts are going to your social network of "likers", then you can't tell how useful having high likes on Facebook is. Then, what incentive is there for people to encourage people to "like" them of Facebook, to build the social network to eventually buy Facebook ads? They are killing the goose that laid the golden egg by dialing down non-paid posts. Maybe large companies might continue to pay for ads, but new companies, or SMBs will completely lose incentive to build a Facebook following, since the ROI on building a Facebook following will be expensive and the result completely unpredictable.
unclebucknasty 13y ago
Overall, FB is taking a very hostile position and it is only thinly veiled. >“Like many mediums, if businesses want to make sure that people see their content, the best strategy is, and always has been, paid advertising,” a spokeswoman said in an emailed statement. That "Like many mediums" bit is a slap in the face. It's implying that those who would complain are unrealistic freeloaders or otherwise somehow at fault for their own declining engagement. This, even when it is really due to FB actively working to cause the decline. Also, it completely pretends that FB has always been "like many mediums" and did not encourage like-activity, as well as re-inforce the benefits of said activity with previously higher levels of engagement. The net message, essentially, is "why would you expect a free ride from FB, when you don't expect it anywhere else?" Very snarky, condescending, and hostile.
adenner 13y ago
What will come next? A google Adsense like system where content posters bid on views and only the top payers per viewers are seen?
- ggreenbe 13y ago
  I thought that was partly how it works, similar to twitter ads. You bid on views/clicks.
mikiem 13y ago
It kills me... Time.com of all places says my Facebook posts will reach "less users". I suspected I might reach "fewer users".
djyaz1200 13y ago
FB has pimping down so cold I gotta tip my hat to Zuck! Gotta love how they "gameify" customer communication. The message to every business was... everything has changed... now all that matters is FB likes. Don't ask why just chase that... Ok cool, got a bunch of likes now? Ok now we're gonna restrict your posts and make you pay every time you want to reach them. God forbid you just ask for customers phone number or Email? Instead we run your list for you... and we repeatedly resell portions of your customer access back to you via some mysterious and ever changing algorithm. Now that my friends is pimpin!
bowlofpetunias 13y ago
Maybe I've been talking to the wrong people, but all I hear about marketing through Facebook pages is that it delivers little to no results, and most companies that have a Facebook page aren't actively maintaining it anymore. And growth in advertising doesn't tell me anything. Most of the advertising market consists of a bubble in which all parties tell each other it's worth the money with very little evidence to show for it. But maybe that's just because I live in a bubble where advertising is mostly invisible.
Hawkee 13y ago
How about Facebook add a "Follow" feature to get 100% of the posts? They don't even need to show the number of followers a page has received. At least then users have the option to see everything a page has to offer. "Likes" no longer have any meaning, so we need something that actually means something.
- yashg 13y ago
  They used to have that option where you can see all posts from a page but now that option has disappeared.
rm445 13y ago
So what? Who are the users who want to be spammed forever following 'Like'-ing a business or brand? People use Facebook to communicate with people that they know: liking a business or brand is a communication with friends, not with that business. You like something to put it on your profile, and put an entry on your newsfeed saying you like that thing. It's not to sign up to a newsletter. Now Facebook has to make money so I am sure they will continue to change things to help advertisers reach people (for $$$). But there's no incentive to let companies engage in spammy practices - or at least, the grey area of unsolicited communication following an existing relationship - for free. In my view businesses who thought that somehow the rules had changed and that social networks meant free advertising forever, never had it right in the first place.
- paul_f 13y ago
  "Who are the users who want to be spammed forever following 'Like'-ing a business or brand?" But isn't that exactly how Twitter works? And isn't that what Facebook users expect? To see all the posts of their friends and pages they Like?
- robryan 13y ago
  It is convenient for Facebook that it is in the best interests of the users. Facebook in part become as big as it is today via the free advertising it receives on the vast majority of business advertising which includes a Facebook page link or even just an icon. Businesses have been incentivized to build this audience. But arguably now Facebook is so intrenched that it can remove some of this incentive and even profit of giving some of it back for a price.
ramonex 13y ago
I have paid around 1000 USD for my fans using Facebook Ads, and now I can't reach them, I can't browse them (no search box in the fan list), I can't write to them... Facebook is a scam! Greedy, calculated scam.
jessaustin 13y ago
TIL that businesses should own their own name on the internet, and point their customers at that instead of into some walled garden.
davidgerard 13y ago
And you thought that people who had specifically asked to read you should be able to read you! Foolish human. A musician friend on FB friend notes that posts containing the words "song" or "music" or that link to Soundcloud appear to get badly downvoted by the algorithm in casual tests he's done. Possible workaround: put your s*ngs on Youtube.
yashg 13y ago
I have a page with 1K+ likes and I too have seen that posts don't reach as many people as it used to be. But what I have noticed is that there are some regulars who always like almost every post on the page. So may be the more you like the content of a page, the more of that page you see is what Facebook is dong and it kind of makes sense. I am subscribed to many pages and I don't "like" or comment on every post that a page makes. Over a time I have seen that Facebook shows me more from pages where I like or comment to posts most often and the rest start to vanish from my timeline but if I go back to a page and interact with with a few posts, suddenly I start seeing content from that page on my newsfeed. So what Facebook is doing makes sense. Yes as a page owner I would like to reach maximum audience, but engagement is also key. This will ensure as a page owner I create more engaging and interesting content so more people engage with my page organically.
yashg 13y ago
It won't be long before Twitter also starts doing this.

56 points by sgy 13y ago

vacri 13y ago

Ambiguous headline: 'over' meaning 'finished'? Or 'over' meaning 'located'? Veritasium has an interesting related video explaining some of the Facebook shennanigans where they withhold your posts from a large amount of your subscribers if you're popular, unless you pay them money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g

sgy 13y ago
finished.
- vacri 13y ago
  My point probably wasn't very clear - in a summary of article headlines, this one would be a little ambiguous. It may be intentional, but it doesn't feel like it.
  - sgy 13y ago
    They better meant "finished"

philip1209 13y ago

This sounds reasonable and similar to the LinkedIn monetization strategy. The core competency of Facebook is communication, not ads, so making money on communication is ideal.

beedogs 13y ago
Ideal? Not at all. All it's doing is driving down the signal-to-noise ratio on Facebook, because the only things that can afford to throw bad money after bad money to reach users are massive corporations.

notastartup 13y ago

This almost seems like desperation. Time is ticking, earnings need to be delivered, one quick heist after another, with user base dropping, people adverse to being a marketing dataset.

neotek 13y ago

People are quick to paint this as Facebook twisting the screw, but do we know definitively, not speculatively, that this is an intentional and planned effect, like there's some variable somewhere that determines what percentage of a page's fans will see a post before it stops being shown? Why can't it just be due to the growth of Facebook? There's more content competing for eyeballs, the way consumers engage with Facebook has probably changed over time, people may be following more pages than they used to, and so on.

davidgerard 13y ago
A musician friend on FB friend notes that posts containing the words "song" or "music" or that link to Soundcloud appear to get badly downvoted by the algorithm in casual tests he's done. So anecdote, but not completely untested anecdote. Possible workaround: put your s*ngs on Youtube.

rebel 13y ago

This was ultimately a massive bait and switch and I can't believe more people don't find it disgusting. Facebook gave off the impression you would be able to reach people who became your fan on their network.. until they didn't need any more free marketing. Now that everyone is on Facebook, they've decided to focus on the user experience more and leave all the brands who promoted them out in the cold. It would be one thing if they were charging all along, or made that intention clear. Instead they took all the free marketing and slowly scaled down how many of your fans saw your posts (frog in boiling water?). It's to the point now where I have pages that reach .1% of my fans. Facebook now wants thousands of dollars for just ONE post to reach a significant portion (not even all) of my fan base. Ultimately, I don't think Facebook had a choice. The user experience, with the amount of pages some people like, would be horrendous. But to spend any time or money to try to build a fan page on Facebook now would be a joke. Anyone currently spending their advertising dollars to buy likes on Facebook is terribly misinformed on the impact it will have (none). Additionally, it seems many of the major brands I've seen advertising via print, TV, etc. have been only promoting their Twitter accounts now. I have to assume this is a reaction to Facebook burning them and now they are trying to make Twitter a larger threat to Facebook.

saurik 13y ago
> Ultimately, I don't think Facebook had a choice. The user experience, with the amount of pages some people like, would be horrendous. If someone doesn't like the content from a Page they follow, they should unfollow it: I specifically follow the things I do because I want to see their content... it does not improve the user experience to limit that content; if anything, it destroys the user experience, as the reason I go to Facebook is to see the content from the people and brands I like: showing me less of the stuff I like leaves me disappointed and unsatisfied.
- s3r3nity 13y ago
  The real issue here is creating an algorithm that optimizes what you like best: friend content, page content, and/or games/apps/etc. I would guess the majority of the population has higher engagement with friend content then page content, which is why their algorithms show pages less and less. Not necessarily a malicious "bait and switch" (because that implies forethought, which I am highly skeptical was the case if you worked in a tech company in the valley for more than 3 months) but rather not providing the best solution for an algorithmic news feed.

camus2 13y ago

> But if the brands, organizations and celebrities that use Pages want to continue to reach Facebook’s 1.23 billion monthly users in the future, they’re going to have to pay up. The free lunch is over. Next, paid developer apis...

ohashi 13y ago
Suddenly buying up any potential competitor at any price doesn't seem too crazy. Give them no options, then they have to pay!

dhawalhs 13y ago

This is what I am seeing with my FB page. Over a year ago with with fewer likes I was able to reach more people. With almost 18,000 likes, I can barely reach a thousand people now. The funny part is if a post is doing well, FB will suggest you to advertise the post since its getting "higher than usual engagement".

NoodleIncident 13y ago
You seem to hate the decisions they've made, and are quoting that to show how bad it is. To me, though, that sounds like a dream marketing platform; one where you only have to pay for ads that do well, because you can push them for free to a small sample of your audience to test them. Another possibility: if FB ever gets any good at figuring out from the content of a post who will like it, then a benevolent FB could show each post of yours to the 10% of your audience who actually wants to see it, but not spam them with the other 90%, which would make them stop following your page.
- robryan 13y ago
  I think it is more akin to building a 18k email marketing list and then having to pay a fee for each subsequent email you sent to them.

lingben 13y ago

in case you haven't watched these videos from Veritasium yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag both videos show why facebook's model is inherently self-destructive and incoherent and will inevitably implode

beedogs 13y ago

All this means is that you'll see more dumb ads for Coke and Sony and no posts from your friend's small fitness blog or charity. Which means Facebook will become increasingly cold and impersonal, like any other corporate entity.

Dale1 13y ago
Yep, pretty much :(

steven2012 13y ago

This to me sounds really self-defeating. If none of your non-paid posts are going to your social network of "likers", then you can't tell how useful having high likes on Facebook is. Then, what incentive is there for people to encourage people to "like" them of Facebook, to build the social network to eventually buy Facebook ads? They are killing the goose that laid the golden egg by dialing down non-paid posts. Maybe large companies might continue to pay for ads, but new companies, or SMBs will completely lose incentive to build a Facebook following, since the ROI on building a Facebook following will be expensive and the result completely unpredictable.

unclebucknasty 13y ago

Overall, FB is taking a very hostile position and it is only thinly veiled. >“Like many mediums, if businesses want to make sure that people see their content, the best strategy is, and always has been, paid advertising,” a spokeswoman said in an emailed statement. That "Like many mediums" bit is a slap in the face. It's implying that those who would complain are unrealistic freeloaders or otherwise somehow at fault for their own declining engagement. This, even when it is really due to FB actively working to cause the decline. Also, it completely pretends that FB has always been "like many mediums" and did not encourage like-activity, as well as re-inforce the benefits of said activity with previously higher levels of engagement. The net message, essentially, is "why would you expect a free ride from FB, when you don't expect it anywhere else?" Very snarky, condescending, and hostile.

adenner 13y ago

What will come next? A google Adsense like system where content posters bid on views and only the top payers per viewers are seen?

ggreenbe 13y ago
I thought that was partly how it works, similar to twitter ads. You bid on views/clicks.

mikiem 13y ago

It kills me... Time.com of all places says my Facebook posts will reach "less users". I suspected I might reach "fewer users".

djyaz1200 13y ago

FB has pimping down so cold I gotta tip my hat to Zuck! Gotta love how they "gameify" customer communication. The message to every business was... everything has changed... now all that matters is FB likes. Don't ask why just chase that... Ok cool, got a bunch of likes now? Ok now we're gonna restrict your posts and make you pay every time you want to reach them. God forbid you just ask for customers phone number or Email? Instead we run your list for you... and we repeatedly resell portions of your customer access back to you via some mysterious and ever changing algorithm. Now that my friends is pimpin!

bowlofpetunias 13y ago

Maybe I've been talking to the wrong people, but all I hear about marketing through Facebook pages is that it delivers little to no results, and most companies that have a Facebook page aren't actively maintaining it anymore. And growth in advertising doesn't tell me anything. Most of the advertising market consists of a bubble in which all parties tell each other it's worth the money with very little evidence to show for it. But maybe that's just because I live in a bubble where advertising is mostly invisible.

Hawkee 13y ago

How about Facebook add a "Follow" feature to get 100% of the posts? They don't even need to show the number of followers a page has received. At least then users have the option to see everything a page has to offer. "Likes" no longer have any meaning, so we need something that actually means something.

yashg 13y ago
They used to have that option where you can see all posts from a page but now that option has disappeared.

rm445 13y ago

So what? Who are the users who want to be spammed forever following 'Like'-ing a business or brand? People use Facebook to communicate with people that they know: liking a business or brand is a communication with friends, not with that business. You like something to put it on your profile, and put an entry on your newsfeed saying you like that thing. It's not to sign up to a newsletter. Now Facebook has to make money so I am sure they will continue to change things to help advertisers reach people (for $$$). But there's no incentive to let companies engage in spammy practices - or at least, the grey area of unsolicited communication following an existing relationship - for free. In my view businesses who thought that somehow the rules had changed and that social networks meant free advertising forever, never had it right in the first place.

paul_f 13y ago
"Who are the users who want to be spammed forever following 'Like'-ing a business or brand?" But isn't that exactly how Twitter works? And isn't that what Facebook users expect? To see all the posts of their friends and pages they Like?
robryan 13y ago
It is convenient for Facebook that it is in the best interests of the users. Facebook in part become as big as it is today via the free advertising it receives on the vast majority of business advertising which includes a Facebook page link or even just an icon. Businesses have been incentivized to build this audience. But arguably now Facebook is so intrenched that it can remove some of this incentive and even profit of giving some of it back for a price.

ramonex 13y ago

I have paid around 1000 USD for my fans using Facebook Ads, and now I can't reach them, I can't browse them (no search box in the fan list), I can't write to them... Facebook is a scam! Greedy, calculated scam.

jessaustin 13y ago

TIL that businesses should own their own name on the internet, and point their customers at that instead of into some walled garden.

davidgerard 13y ago

And you thought that people who had specifically asked to read you should be able to read you! Foolish human. A musician friend on FB friend notes that posts containing the words "song" or "music" or that link to Soundcloud appear to get badly downvoted by the algorithm in casual tests he's done. Possible workaround: put your s*ngs on Youtube.

yashg 13y ago

I have a page with 1K+ likes and I too have seen that posts don't reach as many people as it used to be. But what I have noticed is that there are some regulars who always like almost every post on the page. So may be the more you like the content of a page, the more of that page you see is what Facebook is dong and it kind of makes sense. I am subscribed to many pages and I don't "like" or comment on every post that a page makes. Over a time I have seen that Facebook shows me more from pages where I like or comment to posts most often and the rest start to vanish from my timeline but if I go back to a page and interact with with a few posts, suddenly I start seeing content from that page on my newsfeed. So what Facebook is doing makes sense. Yes as a page owner I would like to reach maximum audience, but engagement is also key. This will ensure as a page owner I create more engaging and interesting content so more people engage with my page organically.

yashg 13y ago

It won't be long before Twitter also starts doing this.