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

Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 37 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent

#11

Post by munk-a »

explainplease wrote: post #6

Regardless of how one feels about Facebook, has anyone stopped to ask why Facebook and Zuckerberg are getting such an avalanche of negative coverage from the mainstream media? Why have they suddenly united against him?

It is a bit odd Facebook is getting all the negative attention, but it definitely deserves a lot of negative attention. Perhaps other companies in a similar position (MSFT, Google, Apple) are seen as contributing something of value while Facebook solely exists to broker your data to a third party.

I believe it's valuable to society that FB is revealed as the advertising giant they are, but there are other companies with their fingers in the pie that should be treated similarly - maybe our bandwidth just isn't sufficient to sustain negative coverage against multiple targets, that actually wouldn't surprise me.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent

#12

Post by burtonator »

The research here is amazingly flawed.

They ASKED users what they wanted.

If you've every done anything with behavioral analysis online you'll quickly learn that users say they want one thing and then often behave the exact opposite.

First. If you ask users if they would use a site that has ads, the percentage that say they don't want ads (which is probably a majority) are also the same ones that won't pay for the site.

This is a demonstration of consumer irrationality. It's usually either A or B.. not neither A nor B.

There are basically three main revenue models online:

1. ads. 2. paid content. 3. you're the product.

Now #3 might not ALWAYS be bad. Duolingo for example can use the feedback they get from users using the app to improve the service and some users DO pay to remove the ads. When you're using it in a freemium capacity you're actually paying to help train Duolingo.

With Facebook they're mostly #3...

A better way to do this would be behavioral analysis.

The first is to find out if consumers want ads or would they rather pay for a service directly.

The answer is overwhelmingly in favor of them NOT paying directly. They would rather be the product or see ads.

Don't believe me? Do you see any social networks that charge money? There are some somewhat freemium platforms like Wordpress (which still has ads) but for the most part the vast majority of the revenue online does not come directly from consumers.

Now... do users want customized ads?

Again. The data is overwhelming here.

Between two ads, one tailored to the user , and another random ad, the more targeted it is the greater conversion rate.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent

#13

Post by chiefalchemist »

IDK, perhaps it's my bias against NYT (for too many years of too little too late reporting) but this type of analysis feels...well...um...like too little too late. It's not like anyone on FB is going to read this and suddenly reconsider their relationship with FB and/or their opinion of Mr Z.

Finally, Z has no delusions. He knows exactly what FB is, as well as what (and then some) the masses will be willing to forfeit in order to bolster FB's bottom line.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent

#15

Post by grkn »

There are many other companies which collect the same amount or more data than Facebook does and they use it for the same purpose: targeted advertising. Putting the other issues Facebook had with Cambridge analytica or getting 50 million users' info hacked aside, I'm struggling to understand why articles like this from NYTimes are pointed just only to Zuckerberg and Facebook as in they are the only ones who provide targeted advertising platform. As I mentioned that's the whole multi-billion dollar industry that allows companies to do the targeted and programmable advertising and yes, it's pretty much the business model of the internet.

At this point, I feel like they are just abusing the situation and writing everything like Facebook did yet another more terrible thing.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent

#17

Post by bsanr2 »

burtonator wrote: post #12

The research here is amazingly flawed. They ASKED users what they wanted. If you've every done anything with behavioral analysis online you'll quickly learn that users say they want one thing and then often behave the exact opposite. First. If you ask users if they would use a site that has ads, the percentage that say they don't want ads (which is probably a majority) are also the same ones that won't pay for the si…

That only proves that users click on tailored ads, not that they necessarily want them. Perhaps many users would rather ads be unrelated to their interests, so that they would be easier to ignore. Perhaps there is an unwanted psychological burden associated with going to a website for a specific purpose, and being distracted by something that is somewhat related to their general interests, such that it becomes more difficult to use that website purposefully.

So consumers want a free lunch. It may not be logical from a site owner's perspective, but it makes sense to consumers.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent

#18

Post by tivert »

grkn wrote: post #15

There are many other companies which collect the same amount or more data than Facebook does and they use it for the same purpose: targeted advertising. Putting the other issues Facebook had with Cambridge analytica or getting 50 million users' info hacked aside, I'm struggling to understand why articles like this from NYTimes are pointed just only to Zuckerberg and Facebook as in they are the only ones who provide t…

> I'm struggling to understand why articles like this from NYTimes are pointed just only to Zuckerberg and Facebook as in they are the only ones who provide targeted advertising platform.

Facebook has a recognizable face that can make statements that can be critiqued, the ill-defined "many other companies" do not. Focusing on Facebook make the issue easier to understand, but the issues raised apply to all targeted advertising companies that try to justify themselves to consumers.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent

#19

Post by stuntkite »

burtonator wrote: post #12

The research here is amazingly flawed. They ASKED users what they wanted. If you've every done anything with behavioral analysis online you'll quickly learn that users say they want one thing and then often behave the exact opposite. First. If you ask users if they would use a site that has ads, the percentage that say they don't want ads (which is probably a majority) are also the same ones that won't pay for the si…

I think culturally facebook could never make the transition with any sort of customer confidence, but I really think they could offer a paid facebook with no ads and more transparency on the data. People would pay $10 a month for that. I mean, slanging user data and social manipulation tooling to any guy with a stack of cash is probably way more lucrative, but a move like that would even sway me a bit to wonder if they could turn around into something that isn't cancer.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent

#20

Post by burtonator »

stuntkite wrote: post #19
burtonator wrote: post #12

The research here is amazingly flawed. They ASKED users what they wanted. If you've every done anything with behavioral analysis online you'll quickly learn that users say they want one thing and then often behave the exact opposite. First. If you ask users if they would use a site that has ads, the percentage that say they don't want ads (which is probably a majority) are also the same ones that won't pay for the si…

I think culturally facebook could never make the transition with any sort of customer confidence, but I really think they could offer a paid facebook with no ads and more transparency on the data. People would pay $10 a month for that. I mean, slanging user data and social manipulation tooling to any guy with a stack of cash is probably way more lucrative, but a move like that would even sway me a bit to wonder if th…

The issue is that a paid Facebook wouldn't make any money. This wouldn't even impact the bottom line.

Services like Evernote have < 5% of the userbase paying.

Post reply on HN