How Facebook Is Selling Your Timeline to Advertisers
betabeat.com
betabeat.com
What most users don’t know is that the new features being introduced are all centered around increasing the value of Facebook to advertisers
Centered? I don't know. Timeline seems pretty user-centric to me. I've had it for a few months as a developer, but since it became public I've seen plenty of my friends filling out details, tagging their friends in previous big life events... they're not doing it because Facebook tricked them into it, they're doing it because they want to.
Yes, there is also an advertiser advantage to this- same as any information you plug into Facebook. But I don't think it's fair to paint Facebook as cynically putting Timeline together so that they can mine data. If you're comfortable with the way Facebook makes money (which, personally, I am) there's nothing to go crazy about in here.
So yeah, it's true that at some level nobody's particularly surprised by this any more. People are sick of Facebook and waiting for what's next, and for most of them Timeline will just reinforce those feelings.
Most people 'hate' every single change Facebook has ever made, yet somehow manage to totally forget about it within about two months. People hate change.
Honestly, if "most people" are annoyed that Facebook serves ads based on the content of their profile then they should leave Facebook. Because that's the business model the site operates on.
Facebook is not vulnerable from a privacy standpoint- that was the reason everyone said that they were moving to Google+. They didn't.
Inability to use buggy poorly-designed extremely complex software correctly is not evidence that people don't care. I'm a software engineer and security guy and deal well with complexity and even so I haven't been able to figure out how to keep my profile both visible to the people I want to and secure without devoting way more time than I have available. When I tell people that they often respond "oh thank god it's not just me".
It's not just privacy; it's the whole pattern. The constantly-changing UX is a huge deal to a lot of people, and so is the general attitude of "you're the product" and Zuckerberg's non-apologies.
Agreed that Google+ botched their short-term chance but it has decent usage and now has a much better first-user experience so if people react badly to Timeline, there is an alternative. In any case Google+ has clearly shown there's pent-up demand for a Facebook alternative. They'll keep investing in any case, and there are plenty of other options coming along. I talked about this back in September in "In Chaos there is Opportunity" http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=3163
Bottom line is, Google did the same thing more or less when they introduced Google instant (reducing "I feel lucky" usage to serve more links) and, this might sound harsh, both are companies aim to make money while at the same time improve your user experience by serving targeted ads.
Seriously, it's nothing ground-breaking that no one knows.
If you add more information to Facebook then of course this will be improving the appeal of the platforms to advertisers, don't like it? Stop using it. It's not like there selling your address and phone number which MANY brick and mortar companies would do given the chance.
I get to use a great product without having to put my hand in my wallet, Facebook can continue to grow as a business, the end product improves.
The article's unsubstantiated premise is that Facebook releases products solely with its bottom line in mind. Based on my experience working on ads for Timeline, I'd say that this is antithetical to our nature. We optimized timeline for user experience (engagement) and released it not because of its impact to our bottom line but DESPITE that.
If you aren't convinced, look at the ads on Timeline, and compare to Profile. There were on average four ads per Profile page. Now there's two. People also click away a lot faster on Profile (because there's less content), but people now scroll around and navigate within Timeline. Photos are bigger, we show a lot more content. The resources to support these new products are expensive. If this doesn't illustrate our focus on engagement over our bottom line, color me surprised.
Just another point I wanted to clarify: Whenever money changed hands, even for organic content like sponsored stories, they are clearly labeled "Sponsored." If you don't see Sponsored, there was no optimization for revenue, because no money changed hands.
Ultimately, I think the author is exploiting a confusion between news feed and timeline. Sure, we will experiment with sponsoring organic content in news feed (max one), but they will be clearly labeled and things you can already see.
I just wanted to clarify a few issues that the author is either truly confused about, or is aware of but intentionally exploiting. I hope this helped.
If you have any questions I can answer, I'll be happy to clarify.
Optimizing for user engagement, when you make money off of ads, is optimizing for the bottom line by definition. To claim otherwise is disingenuous at best.
Well, optimizing for f(x) (revenue) is different than optimizing for g(x) (engagement), which is related to f(x), and claiming that we are objectively optimizing for f(x). Not sure if that makes sense, but you are right that it is to our long term interest to optimize for user engagement, not because it necessarily optimizes our revenue, but it optimizes our value for users.
That's not the same as optimizing for revenue directly, though, so calling that "disingenuous at best" is a little misguided.
Our world is based fundamentally on consumption, and thus advertising is integral. In time, advertising is only on a path to becoming more effective. And to do so it will become more integrated with our lives. History confirms: this is quite unavoidable. Plan accordingly.
However, while Google spends countless resources tinkering with their ad delivery algorithms to get that 1% increase that generates them millions more revenue, FB rolls in with a new paradigm that I'm sure will leapfrog whatever Google has done. Brilliant.
I completely agree with you that this is a brilliant game-changer. I don't like it, and won't be a part of it, but there is no question that I would have an emotional response to the picture of one of my friends "liking" a restaurant or a product.
And, I suspect it will be allowed as long as it is clearly spelled out in the TOS (for those who didn't read, there is some dissent and even legal action concerning using the photos of people without direct consent). I also doubt that people will quit FB because of it.
This reminds me a bit about the (small) uproar when brands like Nike were just starting to sell T-shirts with their names on them. Many of us said, "Why would I pay money to advertise for them? They should pay me to wear it!)
Nevertheless, most people were perfectly willing to spend the money and advertise the logo.
Here it is at least clear that the consumer is getting something for his/her willingness to advertise: s/he is getting the use of FB.
The first time I saw an article that was 'liked' by one of my friends on HN I definitely had an emotional response. I logged out of facebook and never went back.
OK.
>> new features being introduced are all centered around increasing the value of Facebook to advertisers
where F.B stands for fluff bustin (due to Copyright asserted on the word "Facebook")
If you must use this necessary evil called FB, I think it is high time users started pushing back on the types of info they want to see and are willing to put-up with.
I guess Bed Bath & Beyond is a customer. I honestly like this though, because the ad is reactive to their merit - I went and clicked that like button. Facebook is so clever. They're turning parts of our activity into advertisements by making them somewhat longer-lasting. It's much more pleasant than having an Acura ad shoved down my throat on YouTube, or having to drive past a smug 100-foot McDonalds ad every morning.