6 ms·

Silly post. Facebook is a business. Just like in Costco, you don't get free samples forever. At some point you need to buy the bagel bites to get full at hom

Silly post. Facebook is a business. Just like in Costco, you don't get free samples forever. At some point you need to buy the bagel bites to get full at home.

peteretep 13y ago
The point you are missing: this business considers itself to be a content creator and value adder, and they do that because Facebook has previously encouraged that. Now Facebook are saying that they don't care how compelling your content is, if you are commercial in any way, you have to pay. That's not how a social network is meant to work.
- WoodenChair 13y ago
  Who exactly defines "how a social network is meant to work?" Seeing as Facebook is one of the two most defining social networks of the social network era I think they at least have a say.
  - grey-area 13y ago
    Who exactly defines "how a social network is meant to work?" The users do. Facebook will see declining participation if they keep taking user-hostile actions like this. People need to feel they are in charge of their feed (at least mostly in charge), but if they no longer control who sees their content, or which content they see, and hence become unhappy using the service or use it less, that's going to be a big problem for FB.
dasil003 13y ago
There's a reason that Twitter and Google label things as sponsored ads. It's because when you are providing a service, there is a direct conflict of interest between your user experience and your ad sales. If you don't draw a line between advertising and organic content, then you severely risk degrading the content your user receives, and it doesn't matter whether you think you are or not (clearly Facebook thinks it can toe this line), but as soon as users perceive that the content they are receiving is more payola than popular then you've killed the golden goose.
voyou 13y ago
Exactly. Eat24 is mad that Facebook won't carry their ads for free, and I can't say that that's a position I have much sympathy for.
- adam74 13y ago
  They are mad because Facebook did a bait-and-switch.
- belorn 13y ago
  Or Eat24 is mad that Facebook are demanding money to carry Eat24 contents for free. If spotify started to demand money for artists rather than pay them, artists would start to get angry.
  - notahacker 13y ago
    Facebook isn't "demanding money to carry Eat24 contents for free". It's suggesting that if they want to bombard large numbers of people with pictures of food to convince them to order takeaway, they probably shouldn't rely on the free feed delivery mechanisms to do so. Let's not pretend Eat24 was doing Facebook a favour here, or that anyone signed up to Facebook to look at pictures of pizza. Facebook was doing Eat24 a favour, and Eat24 were earning so nicely from it they were willing to experiment with shelling out money to continue distributing the same content.
  - ryandrake 13y ago
    I'm not sure I understand the difference between "<company> ads" and "<company>'s content". Facebook is a promotional platform. Content posted there by companies are advertisements, nearly by definition.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      People like/follow accounts of companies on social networks in order to consume the content those accounts post. Certainly this includes marketing material, but a key distinction between this and ordinary ads is that people have made a deliberate decision, "I wish to see content from this company". That content becomes part of the reason people spend time on the platform, adding more opportunities for Facebook to sell actual ads (including to competitors, I might add). The network effect applies to companies, too! Facebook is now denying that content to users who have said they want it, and destroying most of the value to the companies of creating that content. This is a reversal of their prior policies (thus a bait-and-switch), dishonest (if they don't want companies participating in their social network, they should just ban them and make them run ordinary ads), and just plain ol' stupid (because they're deliberately damaging their network and their image).
ivanca 13y ago
Silly answer because if you read the post you realize that they did pay for advertisement, is just that not even that works because it just brings spammy/fake likes.

Silly post. Facebook is a business. Just like in Costco, you don't get free samples forever. At some point you need to buy the bagel bites to get full at home.

peteretep 13y ago

The point you are missing: this business considers itself to be a content creator and value adder, and they do that because Facebook has previously encouraged that. Now Facebook are saying that they don't care how compelling your content is, if you are commercial in any way, you have to pay. That's not how a social network is meant to work.

WoodenChair 13y ago
Who exactly defines "how a social network is meant to work?" Seeing as Facebook is one of the two most defining social networks of the social network era I think they at least have a say.
- grey-area 13y ago
  Who exactly defines "how a social network is meant to work?" The users do. Facebook will see declining participation if they keep taking user-hostile actions like this. People need to feel they are in charge of their feed (at least mostly in charge), but if they no longer control who sees their content, or which content they see, and hence become unhappy using the service or use it less, that's going to be a big problem for FB.

dasil003 13y ago

There's a reason that Twitter and Google label things as sponsored ads. It's because when you are providing a service, there is a direct conflict of interest between your user experience and your ad sales. If you don't draw a line between advertising and organic content, then you severely risk degrading the content your user receives, and it doesn't matter whether you think you are or not (clearly Facebook thinks it can toe this line), but as soon as users perceive that the content they are receiving is more payola than popular then you've killed the golden goose.

voyou 13y ago

Exactly. Eat24 is mad that Facebook won't carry their ads for free, and I can't say that that's a position I have much sympathy for.

adam74 13y ago
They are mad because Facebook did a bait-and-switch.
belorn 13y ago
Or Eat24 is mad that Facebook are demanding money to carry Eat24 contents for free. If spotify started to demand money for artists rather than pay them, artists would start to get angry.
- notahacker 13y ago
  Facebook isn't "demanding money to carry Eat24 contents for free". It's suggesting that if they want to bombard large numbers of people with pictures of food to convince them to order takeaway, they probably shouldn't rely on the free feed delivery mechanisms to do so. Let's not pretend Eat24 was doing Facebook a favour here, or that anyone signed up to Facebook to look at pictures of pizza. Facebook was doing Eat24 a favour, and Eat24 were earning so nicely from it they were willing to experiment with shelling out money to continue distributing the same content.
- ryandrake 13y ago
  I'm not sure I understand the difference between "<company> ads" and "<company>'s content". Facebook is a promotional platform. Content posted there by companies are advertisements, nearly by definition.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    People like/follow accounts of companies on social networks in order to consume the content those accounts post. Certainly this includes marketing material, but a key distinction between this and ordinary ads is that people have made a deliberate decision, "I wish to see content from this company". That content becomes part of the reason people spend time on the platform, adding more opportunities for Facebook to sell actual ads (including to competitors, I might add). The network effect applies to companies, too! Facebook is now denying that content to users who have said they want it, and destroying most of the value to the companies of creating that content. This is a reversal of their prior policies (thus a bait-and-switch), dishonest (if they don't want companies participating in their social network, they should just ban them and make them run ordinary ads), and just plain ol' stupid (because they're deliberately damaging their network and their image).

ivanca 13y ago

Silly answer because if you read the post you realize that they did pay for advertisement, is just that not even that works because it just brings spammy/fake likes.