Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook bends the rules of audience engagement to its advantage

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 119 posts

Re: Facebook bends the rules of audience engagement to its advantage

#91

Post by taneq »

cryptoz wrote: post #49
Aelinsaar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that's a little ominous, but yeah absolutely. It also fits with the "consumer as product" viewpoint.

Isn't the only logical endpoint for Facebook to become a VR world where we all spend 100% of our time? That's what a forever-continuing revenue increase would create, right? And that's exactly how the incentive structures exist right now. I don't really like that society places such high emphasis on structures that create dystopias.

On the plus side, beyond a certain point Facebook is going to have to start investing heavily in life-extension technology for their users, so as to continue increasing the time that users can use Facebook.

Re: Facebook bends the rules of audience engagement to its advantage

#92

Post by devishard »

jheriko wrote: post #5

Why is this remotely bad? > “They’re doing a tremendous job of finding ways to keep people on the site” Could also be phrased "Facebook provides such great value to its unpaying customers that they are willing to spend 50 minutes per day interacting with their services" ... a spin/PR/sales person could word it better I'm sure

Please don't feed the turd-polishers.

Re: Facebook bends the rules of audience engagement to its advantage

#93

Post by kelukelugames »

arcticfox wrote: post #3

> As a company spokeswoman, Jessie Baker, told me: “The time people spend on our site is a good measure of whether we’re delivering value to them.” Eh, the same argument could be made by Philip Morris or a casino: "The time people spend using our products is a good measure of whether we're delivering value to them."

I would be happier if I spent less time on facebook. It is a drug for me.

Re: Facebook bends the rules of audience engagement to its advantage

#94

Post by cb18 »

rhizome wrote: post #85
cb18 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, value in sating a compulsive or addictive behavior, but not all values are equal.

That so many exceptions and alternative interpretations are possible makes "value" a meaningless term. Perhaps some day reporters won't go MEGO[1] when hearing it. 1. https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/mego/

Value is just like a variable, it is a place holder for what matters. And the value of the value can vary depending on the person or the situation. It could be a positive or a negative value, a value of high importance or minimal importance. Assigning something a value just basically means you're not entirely disinterested in it.

Re: Facebook bends the rules of audience engagement to its advantage

#95

Post by dredmorbius »

Criticisms of FB notwithstanding (and it's interesting how that dominates this discussion), time-on-site is a horrible measure of "value added" to me.

I've found highly-directed, highly-filtered, low-noise, low-distraction envrionments are what give me return.

Interfaces and services like ... Books. A notebook. Index cards for noting thoughts and ideas. Tangibles which I can hold, flip through, sort, take outside, read in sunlight, and don't offer me the option of clicking over to see my feed or who's responded to me.

(And no, I don't have a FB account either, never have.)

Re: Facebook bends the rules of audience engagement to its advantage

#96

Post by cwilkes »

Aelinsaar wrote: post #9
arcticfox wrote: post #3

> As a company spokeswoman, Jessie Baker, told me: “The time people spend on our site is a good measure of whether we’re delivering value to them.” Eh, the same argument could be made by Philip Morris or a casino: "The time people spend using our products is a good measure of whether we're delivering value to them."

Exactly. Usage patterns and "deriving value" seem like very different beasts.

At a "big data" talk Yahoo gave one of the keynotes where they asked which one of the two email samples had the "most engagement" Surprise surprise it was the one with the confusing text on it -- people were clicking on it to see what the heck it meant.

But to the Yahoo guys that meant that email was better as it got more clicks. And I suppose it is better if that's how your bonus is constructed.

Re: Facebook bends the rules of audience engagement to its advantage

#97

Post by newjersey »

intrasight wrote: post #75
wallacoloo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, I think there may be a point beyond which Facebook begins to lose revenue as users spend more time on their site. Think about it - their revenue comes from turn-over. They don't make money because you spend time on facebook - they make money because you spend time/money elsewhere, and they know enough about you to encourage you to spend more money on other people's products or otherwise sell their know…

you are neglecting in-app purchases

At some point, time spent on Facebook will start competing against time spent playing candy crush saga.

Re: Facebook bends the rules of audience engagement to its advantage

#98

Post by nihonde »

brandnewlow wrote: post #88
nihonde wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will never understand why advertising businesses (and that's what Facebook is) fail to see their fundamental value proposition: ROI on ad spend. Jessie Baker's comment fails in two respects: (1) eyeballs and engagement time is not a "good measure" without correlating to ROI for advertisers, and (2) FB's value proposition is not aimed at users, but rather at advertisers.

ROI-based measurement is the only sane way to measure the effectiveness of a marketing channel. But if ad companies are measured based on ROI, then they can be easily compared against other channels. That's the last thing any ad company wants. So to make a great deal of money as a marketing channel you need to invent a new metric, one that your company is very good at delivering on. Then you convince the market that…

You're 100% right. I will never understand why ad spend is as high as it is when the customer never proves ROI. It made sense when ads were cultural background noise, in magazines and other media that had no way of providing feedback on conversions, etc. But we've crossed the rubicon, and yet ad channels still suck at ROI for the perverse reasons that you correctly mention.

At least some channels, like App Stores for example, offer something like end-to-end metrics for placements.

Re: Facebook bends the rules of audience engagement to its advantage

#99

Post by gvurrdon »

amelius wrote: post #41
Mendenhall wrote: post #25

All i think of when I see the word facebook is who would use that data mining, censoring, manipulative product. To each their own but I think many dont see whats going on with it.

> many dont see whats going on with it I think we need some realistic examples of what could go wrong. To many, online privacy issues are a bit too hypothetical and abstract.

Indeed; a common response I encounter if I complain about Facebook is along the lines of "I don't see why it matters that FB knows stuff about me, and I think I get more value from them than they possibly could get from me for the trivial information they learn about me."
Post reply on HN