3 ms·

>Do you not see how it's literally impossible for every post I'm subscribed to reach me? And requiring people to pay to reach fans somehow magically fixes this

>Do you not see how it's literally impossible for every post I'm subscribed to reach me? And requiring people to pay to reach fans somehow magically fixes this? Does the payment requirement somehow supercede the best algorithms in perfectly balancing post activity? And, do brands with deeper pockets somehow automatically have the most compelling content? Do you sincerely believe that this is all about solving that problem and it just happens to have a very positive impact on Facebook's bottom line? >But organic growth also still works. This statement is obviously and mathematically less true than it once was. Reaching one fan organically does not mean organic "works". Degree matters here and a much smaller percentage of posts organically reach fans than at a previous time. Somewhere between zero and 100, the degree of organic efficacy becomes a non-starter for companies who previously answered Facebook's call to engage with fans for free, and are now required to pay an untenable amount to reach them.

morgante 13y ago
> Does the payment requirement somehow supercede the best algorithms in perfectly balancing post activity? Yes. That's precisely the point. As a business, you can accept whatever the algorithm dictates or you can pay to override the algorithm (ie. advertising). No different than the tradeoff between hoping a magazine writes an article about you vs. guaranteed reach by purchasing an ad. > This statement is obviously and mathematically less true than it once was. I don't dispute this. It's the natural result of a growing network while people's attention stays finite.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >That's precisely the point. As a business, you can accept whatever the algorithm dictates or you can pay to override the algorithm (ie. advertising). You're moving the goalposts. The original problem was supposedly one of filtering noise from the consumer end. Now, you're talking about advertiser options for reaching their audiences. Yes, we know they now have a choice to pay or not. That's exactly the point. To see the difference, consider if one advertiser with a massive budget could afford to pump out, say, 100 messages a day. Is the user now having a better experience? So, agaim, how does forcing advertisers to pay suddenly balance the posts people see?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

morgante 13y ago

> Does the payment requirement somehow supercede the best algorithms in perfectly balancing post activity? Yes. That's precisely the point. As a business, you can accept whatever the algorithm dictates or you can pay to override the algorithm (ie. advertising). No different than the tradeoff between hoping a magazine writes an article about you vs. guaranteed reach by purchasing an ad. > This statement is obviously and mathematically less true than it once was. I don't dispute this. It's the natural result of a growing network while people's attention stays finite.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>That's precisely the point. As a business, you can accept whatever the algorithm dictates or you can pay to override the algorithm (ie. advertising). You're moving the goalposts. The original problem was supposedly one of filtering noise from the consumer end. Now, you're talking about advertiser options for reaching their audiences. Yes, we know they now have a choice to pay or not. That's exactly the point. To see the difference, consider if one advertiser with a massive budget could afford to pump out, say, 100 messages a day. Is the user now having a better experience? So, agaim, how does forcing advertisers to pay suddenly balance the posts people see?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]