5 ms·

I've noticed that brands now post far too much stuff. Back in the day, if you 'Became a Fan' of a brand/band/organisation, you might expect maybe two posts a w

I've noticed that brands now post far too much stuff. Back in the day, if you 'Became a Fan' of a brand/band/organisation, you might expect maybe two posts a week, maybe less. Now liking a page means you can expect to be subjected to 5+ posts per day. No wonder people are hiding them from their feed/being more careful with what they follow on Facebook. People don't necessarily want to see 20.1% more posts from a brand than they did this time last year (and from a user end, it's good to see that Facebook is cutting it back). On a related note, recently my group of close friends created a group on Facebook, which was originally to help with organising events/activities (because group messaging was becoming unweildy and distracting). The requirement for adding someone to the group is 'would anyone else be upset if the new member invited themselves along to anything posted here', so it's relatively small - about 20 members. But we've been using it for about 3 months, and it has almost become a social network in itself - people post things during the day, we interact without worrying how it looks to outsiders, and there are no posts which are 'showing off' the way facebook status updates sometimes do. I'm not being constantly marketed to. Facebook is fun again - like it was in university.

sheltgor 12y ago
That's pretty much how I use facebook, though its in the form of a chat and related group, while I'm still in Uni. One or two chat threads with ten or so good friends each. Lots of great conversations, sharing, in-jokes, etc. Way more meaningful than my timeline or anything else on the site.
ejain 12y ago
I'd follow more companies on Facebook (or Twitter) if most of what they posted where product updates etc, not inspirational messages and fitness tips.
- e40 12y ago
  Agreed. Before I follow someone on Twitter I look at their recent stream of posts. More than one or two a week, you don't get a follow from me. It's not worth the clutter in my stream.
Vik1ng 12y ago
The problem is that Facebook forces brands to create engagement. You get rewarded for posting easy to consume content that generates a lot of likes and but not for a few quality posts.
lugg 12y ago
I dont play anymore but the only reason I load Facebook is to see posts from my guild members on our guild page. My "friends", which is mostly acquaintances and long lost relatives, rarely post anything that entertains me but I really enjoy the smaller knit group that posts more raw and relatable things. I thing google has something going for it focusing on circles. Now if only i could get passed the naming scandal and the fact I dont want another Facebook to deal with.
riffraff 12y ago
this, they are on a "prisoner spiral". Some time ago there were a few posts now and then from a few pages. Now there are dozens of posts per day from basically everything. And people have more likes because more pages exists. So more content -> facebook trims it -> page owners see a decrease in page view and push more content of lower quality -> interactions decrease -> push even more lower quality content...
- Silhouette 12y ago
  This is what drives me nuts. I've seen "social advertising consultants" or "growth hackers" give talks and even expensive training on how to plan a calendar where you're publishing updates of one type or another (not that your "fans" care in most cases) multiple times per day, every day. Completely unsurprisingly, even genuine fans of, say, $big_name_drinks_brand get fed up with that very quickly. On the other hand, there are organisations that want to use the system as originally conceived, just like your friends: they post an update every now and then when they actually have something of genuine interest to share with their "fans". These days, most of the fans won't actually see it unless the organisation pays FB a fortune to promote every post they make. Probably no big deal if you're Coke or Ford or something, but more so if you're the Friends of St Paul's Church and you're just trying to tell your local congregation about the summer fete next weekend so they can come along. This seems like a short-sighted bait-and-switch from FB to me. They're removing most of the value from the "like" mechanism for both the liker and the likee, just to try and squeeze a bit more advertising revenue out of the mega-advertisers who can afford it... until everyone decides the game is up, takes their ball, and goes home, presumably.
vinbreau 12y ago
I do engineering support for a major company that supplies a relationship management tool to companies like Nike, P&G, Zimmerman, DPSG, etc. I've been in this line of work since 2010 and have watched it explode. In the beginning companies usually only hired a singular person to be their social media manager. These days companies have entire departments doing digital social canvasing. Some of our clients have 20 Facebook admins alone on their social teams, then another 30 doing canvasing for the companies various brands. These teams had to prove their value, especially a few years ago when it was one or two people justifying their existence to upper management. These teams today have to work to get paid, work involves canvasing media sites. At this stage so many companies have invested so heavily in social spaces that they can't admit defeat to their investors whom they assured "social is the future!". This is why it's so bad these days, the number of canvassers has exponentially grown and they have to constantly prove their worth to their employers.

sheltgor 12y ago

That's pretty much how I use facebook, though its in the form of a chat and related group, while I'm still in Uni. One or two chat threads with ten or so good friends each. Lots of great conversations, sharing, in-jokes, etc. Way more meaningful than my timeline or anything else on the site.

ejain 12y ago

I'd follow more companies on Facebook (or Twitter) if most of what they posted where product updates etc, not inspirational messages and fitness tips.

e40 12y ago
Agreed. Before I follow someone on Twitter I look at their recent stream of posts. More than one or two a week, you don't get a follow from me. It's not worth the clutter in my stream.

Vik1ng 12y ago

The problem is that Facebook forces brands to create engagement. You get rewarded for posting easy to consume content that generates a lot of likes and but not for a few quality posts.

lugg 12y ago

I dont play anymore but the only reason I load Facebook is to see posts from my guild members on our guild page. My "friends", which is mostly acquaintances and long lost relatives, rarely post anything that entertains me but I really enjoy the smaller knit group that posts more raw and relatable things. I thing google has something going for it focusing on circles. Now if only i could get passed the naming scandal and the fact I dont want another Facebook to deal with.

riffraff 12y ago

this, they are on a "prisoner spiral". Some time ago there were a few posts now and then from a few pages. Now there are dozens of posts per day from basically everything. And people have more likes because more pages exists. So more content -> facebook trims it -> page owners see a decrease in page view and push more content of lower quality -> interactions decrease -> push even more lower quality content...

Silhouette 12y ago
This is what drives me nuts. I've seen "social advertising consultants" or "growth hackers" give talks and even expensive training on how to plan a calendar where you're publishing updates of one type or another (not that your "fans" care in most cases) multiple times per day, every day. Completely unsurprisingly, even genuine fans of, say, $big_name_drinks_brand get fed up with that very quickly. On the other hand, there are organisations that want to use the system as originally conceived, just like your friends: they post an update every now and then when they actually have something of genuine interest to share with their "fans". These days, most of the fans won't actually see it unless the organisation pays FB a fortune to promote every post they make. Probably no big deal if you're Coke or Ford or something, but more so if you're the Friends of St Paul's Church and you're just trying to tell your local congregation about the summer fete next weekend so they can come along. This seems like a short-sighted bait-and-switch from FB to me. They're removing most of the value from the "like" mechanism for both the liker and the likee, just to try and squeeze a bit more advertising revenue out of the mega-advertisers who can afford it... until everyone decides the game is up, takes their ball, and goes home, presumably.

vinbreau 12y ago

I do engineering support for a major company that supplies a relationship management tool to companies like Nike, P&G, Zimmerman, DPSG, etc. I've been in this line of work since 2010 and have watched it explode. In the beginning companies usually only hired a singular person to be their social media manager. These days companies have entire departments doing digital social canvasing. Some of our clients have 20 Facebook admins alone on their social teams, then another 30 doing canvasing for the companies various brands. These teams had to prove their value, especially a few years ago when it was one or two people justifying their existence to upper management. These teams today have to work to get paid, work involves canvasing media sites. At this stage so many companies have invested so heavily in social spaces that they can't admit defeat to their investors whom they assured "social is the future!". This is why it's so bad these days, the number of canvassers has exponentially grown and they have to constantly prove their worth to their employers.