Hacker News Reader

Comment by loceng | Hacker News Reader

Fact Check: The fans on the Facebook pages were driven there by the page owner, likely through other marketing channels such as TV. It should be a mutually beneficial relationship, though Facebook is trying to take advantage of that relationship now. Companies and people are mobile on the internet. They can drive people wherever they want. Mark Cuban's action is a huge signal. As I said in another reply somewhere, Facebook is essentially providing a newsletter service with pages (plus some other stuff). Oh, and Facebook also has ads on these pages.. Something better will come that doesn't abuse the relationship.

View on HN

I disagree with the whole idea that the "Like-gate" is a problem. Fans of Facebook pages are not necessarily fans. They are people who have happened to click "like" on the page at some point. There are various reasons why people do so:

* perhaps they want to add their interests and likes to their profile, to show their friends what sort of music they listen to.

* perhaps they want to increase the like count of an issue they care about at a "single click worth".

* or perhaps they actually want to receive updates on the topic.

None of these automatically mean that they want to receive updates on the topic so much, that it should be among the top-10 news items of the day compared to their friends' posts. A "like" is much more effortless and not comparable to signing up for an email newsletter.

I don't see Facebook trying to make maximum money from pages with the newsfeed filtering, I see them trying to improve and spam-filter the content of the newsfeed for the benefit of the users. The "like-gate" scandal seems very similar to the SEO-community outrage every time Google changes their ranking algorithm - a community that forgets that if their pages got pushed down, someone else's probably more relevant page got pushed up.

I agree with you that the spread of fanaticism will vary per user who's liked a page. I disagree that Facebook isn't trying to see how much they can charge to let brands get access to these individuals who maybe have a slight interest - whereby these 'Likes' could have been gathered on a separate platform that wouldn't now manipulate the fluidity/friction that exists with reaching all of those users.

Agreed. Most companies seem to be oblivious to the reality that they spent money to get people to like them on Facebook and they own nothing as a result.

I believe this is called insanity!

A direct email campaign would have been cheaper (MailChimp quotes <$2500) and more effective. Despite the social media hype, we keep seeing statistics that support direct media when communicating with existing clients.

How is the relationship suppose to be beneficial to Facebook? No one signs up for Facebook to keep in touch with their favorite brands, they sign up to keep in touch with friends. Facebook allows brands to communicate to their users but their added benefit hardly helps FB at all. The only way it does help Facebook is if they monetize these relationships, which is what Facebook is attempting to do. I'm not sure there is legit proof that FB has decreased Fan Page outreach organically (the only way you could claim they're "abusing" the relationship - I don't see an issue with FB charging brands to reach more fans non-organically.

Mark Cuban isn't God, I don't think this is a "huge" signal at all. IMO, Cuban's critiques of YouTube have been similar - which I feel have also been proven wrong with time.

Brand pages are content for users, and it keeps people on Facebook instead of seeking out the brands and interaction elsewhere. There is no reason brands need to be on Facebook. If it now means being charged $3,000 to temporarily reach 1 million fans (and who knows of what quality level or fanaticism level) then they may question if it's worth it to them, and they are starting to. These brands who built up millions of likes on Facebook could just have a different system, that doesn't need to be connected to a central platform.

They are doing it the wrong way, though I don't care to help Facebook so I won't comment here as to how they should be doing it.

Also, the term organic vs. non-organic -- the posts that reach a person's feed, organically, is set by the algorithm Facebook determines; It's not so organic.

Organic in the sense of how it's used in the industry. Google's search algorithm is set by Google but when talking about the search results people tend to differ between "organic" and paid.

The difference here is that "organic" is considered Google's and Facebook's best attempt to show their user what is most relavent to them. Some speculate that both companies are modifying these results to optimize paid results but there is no smoking gun that is true.

I didn't have sympathy for Facebook when their traditional ads turned out to be worthless and the price fell through the floor. Likewise I don't have sympathy for businesses who feel entitled to free distribution on Facebook and don't like it when Facebook tries to monetize.

The bottom line is that people don't come to Facebook because of brands. Rather brands come to Facebook because that's where the people are.

The fact that at one point a business convinced a user to click a Like button does not provide anything approaching a symmetrical benefit to Facebook. Sure, Facebook is always happy to add content, but that marginal value of that content is nowhere near as important to Facebook as the distribution is to the brands. Facebook's primary asset is an engaged user base, and it's the social exchange that engages users. Meanwhile if businesses are pursuing any social media strategy, where can they get anything approaching the reach of Facebook? Even if another startup comes up with the reach, they'll be in the same monetization boat as Facebook and certainly will make decisions that piss off someone.

It's not really free distribution though. People are on the internet, and Facebook is on top of the internet; People aren't stuck on Facebook. I disagree with the importance to Facebook of having brands integrating with Facebook. A 'Like' button on a brands' website is extremely valuable to Facebook's brand, to strengthening that ecosystem, etc. - and is one mechanism the brand used to promote Facebook and getting them into their 'live newsletter.'

How is it not free distribution?

Facebook alone didn't cover all costs of bringing users, and keeping them, on the platform. Businesses spent money too, marketing dollars, marketing space, etc..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com