7 ms·
I think the details matter here. The bait and switch being referred to is in regards to engaging with followers, not the ad platform directly. Businesses grew
by mrtron 12y ago
I think the details matter here. The bait and switch being referred to is in regards to engaging with followers, not the ad platform directly.
Businesses grew their followers on Facebook over the years with the intention of growing a user-base they could engage with. Now a substantially lower number of your followers see content you post due to algorithm changes. The way to increase your reach to your followers is by paying for ads to basically recapture the engagement you were once getting free.
It would be like if Twitter started charging businesses to display tweets to their own followers.
- Theodores 12y agoOr if Google started to only show you in organic search results 3% of the time.
- dchuk 12y agoWell Google has basically done that by filling up the search results with additional pieces like ads, images, news, maps, local results, etc. Organic results practically don't exist anymore above the fold.
- GenerocUsername 12y agoYeah, I can never find what im looking for on google /s
- Silhouette 12y agoI think the details matter here. The bait and switch being referred to is in regards to engaging with followers, not the ad platform directly. I can see where you're coming from. We've always assumed that Likes had no inherent value -- they are worth exactly the amount of extra revenue they ultimately generate through better reach and/or conversion rates -- so we never ran campaigns whose only goal was something that happens on Facebook. However, I accept that others might have had different expectations. In any case, nerfing posts so you have to pay to boost them if you want the same coverage you had before was clearly a hostile move on Facebook's part.