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

After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

jordan-shared.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 322 posts

Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

#71

Post by MichaelZuo »

smoyer wrote: post #67
__s wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the warning about building your business on someone else's land There aren't really any businesses which have sovereign territory

That's an interesting position (and I'm not disputing it) but if you were a business that has sovereign territory, you still need utilities (Internet). Penn State has its own data-centers, is part of the Internet2 consortium and has dedicated fiber to both AWS and Azure but you're still ultimately reliant on those you're leasing the connections from - even if you own the fiber, you're probably leasing the right-of-wa…

Satellite fleets?

Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

#72

Post by underdown »

tiborsaas wrote: post #59
simplecto wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please enlighten us. Porn networks do not count.

I haven't spent a dime on online ads, but if it were my problem, I'd go though the top Alexa websites and see if they accept money for ads.

This is typically what companies spending 57m on ads do. Its less expensive per click/impression as fb/Google don't take a cut. More expensive to manage.

Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

#74

Post by _vertigo »

blantonl wrote: post #61

Let's be fair here. Shared.com is in the business of producing and distributing crap content. That's a subjective term, but it's like the supreme court ruling on pornography, you'll know it when you see it. These guys most likely "skirt the line" to just operate as a mediocre and crappy content distribution network, that at scale, makes a lot of money because there is a certain subset of the population that will eat…

Facebook is absolutely full to the brim with “crap content”. Crap content happens to be what drives engagement, so hosting crap content is a large part of Facebook’s business model.

You’re speaking with a pretty authoritative tone there as though you’re absolutely sure that Facebook has had a change of heart and only wants to host quality content, and there’s no other reason why the pages were removed. Do you have some sort of proof for that, or are you just speculating? If you’re speculating, don’t you think it would be a good idea to match the tone of your post to your true amount of confidence in what you’re saying, so as not to misinform people who might read your comment?

Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

#75

Post by ike77 »

jgurewitz wrote: post #40

To maybe help clarify, the author mentions 57M spent over 14 years. My guess is that this was more front loaded given FB dynamics, but evenly distributed that's 300k a month, which might barely qualify you for a small business representative. The size and scale of FB are such that unless you're well over 1M a month you are a small business.

It's 1/10000th of their global revenues. And 1/3000th of their US revenues.

Assuming a Zipf distribution for their clients spending, it easily place them in the top 1000 biggest spenders.

I wouldn't call it small.

Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

#76

Post by sb8244 »

dbt00 wrote: post #18
kowlo wrote: post #3

That is a serious amount of money. Are Facebook ads really that effective? The final paragraph makes me sad - this company is entirely at the mercy of Facebook.

> The final paragraph makes me sad - this company is entirely at the mercy of Facebook. The content is up, go read. Shared.com, fun.shared.com, see if you would ever want their headlines in your news feed.

I don't want to read their content, but why should I (or someone else) get to make the decision of what others choose to read? I see lots of stuff shared on Facebook that I just can't believe people are into, but they are really into it. Good for them for finding enjoyment in it. If I don't want to see that content, I can mute the person to clean up my feed.

If the content doesn't violate any rules and people want to read it, then it has a place. If it does violate rules, then communicate those clearly. Given that, I think that this is most likely not an issue of rules violation but of Facebook not wanting the content on their platform (and not wanting to actually justify that).

Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

#78

Post by steeleyespan »

Much smaller scale, but I got kicked off Adsense after running for over 10 years. No guidance, no feedback, etc. Even our direct Adsense rep said she had no input with the policy teams. They kept about 1.5mm in revenue.

It is hard being wholly dependent on a large company (Google, Facebook, etc.), but not much choice you have either when riding that wave on their product.

Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

#79

Post by webmobdev »

blantonl wrote: post #61

Let's be fair here. Shared.com is in the business of producing and distributing crap content. That's a subjective term, but it's like the supreme court ruling on pornography, you'll know it when you see it. These guys most likely "skirt the line" to just operate as a mediocre and crappy content distribution network, that at scale, makes a lot of money because there is a certain subset of the population that will eat…

> Facebook decided they don't want to be a part of this type of content distribution

Isn't that a slippery slope? In my country, Facebook decided not to ban some right-wing posters for hate speech because the right-wing in power had managed to get one of their OWN into Facebook, who "advised" Facebook that fighting hate-speech from such people would adversely affect Facebook operation in India as the government in power won't be happy about it. This person also got Facebook to take down opposition ads during the elections, thus harming their electoral prospects.

Source: Facebook and Narendra Modi: How FB’s policy head in India allowed a BJP politician to spread hate online so that it would not hurt its “business prospects” - https://churumuri.blog/2020/08/15/facebook-and-narendra-modi...

Re: After spending $57M on Facebook ads, I was kicked off

#80

Post by mattficke »

sonotmyname wrote: post #64
mattficke wrote: post #45

>Freebies has been plagued by recent ad violations suggesting they are not following policy for dating ads. Freebies has never run a dating site, nor has it advertised for dating sites on Facebook. The CEO of Freebies, Mike Debutte, tried in vain to reach out to Facebook for help in appealing the supposed violations that are causing major disruptions and loss of revenue to our business. It was frustrating and handica…

> Isn't this the explanation? Err, how is that an explanation? If they don't run dating ads and Facebook says their dating ads are non-compliant, it's a non-answer. It'd be like me firing you for having blue hair when you don't have blue hair.

The claim isn't that the explanation is incorrect or based on a faulty premise, they're saying that there was no explanation at all.

Maybe they're right about FB incorrectly flagging their ads, I'm not in a position to judge. However, they're making a misleading claim by saying this happened without explanation and leading with the image showing no Page Quality violations, since the affiliated Freebies page did apparently have numerous violations.

Post reply on HN