51–60 of 267 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your impression of Facebook's user base is about five years out of date. Facebook is closing in on having ~1,000,000,000 members. I would suspect millions of those members are looking for a new car right this second . Facebook needs to find better a way, like Google did, of matching those members with advertisers.
But are they looking for a car while they're on Facebook?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any thoughts on better choices for advertising B2B offerings? Has anybody here tried LinkedIn for that, for example?
Google AdWords?
The thing is, they don't. They really don't. I hardly even notice them, like there's some kind of mental block that prevents the brain from perceiving the ads. Same thing applies to Google ads, I completely ignore them. Has anyone else noticed such behavior in themselves?
When you're close to an IPO you are very vulnerable to hard-ball negotiation tactics. This could easily be the endgame of 'reduce our rates or else'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is insane. Only a bloated bohemoth could manage to spend $30 million on its Facebook-focused HR people. I admit I've never worked at GM, so if someone can tell me why I'm wrong, please do.
Their page has (roughly) 300k followers. That's $100 per reachable user per year, which is insane. If they were using that additional $10mm to get the 300k followers to begin with, that's an even worse indictment of FB advertising for traditional brands.
When you're close to an IPO you are very vulnerable to hard-ball negotiation tactics. This could easily be the endgame of 'reduce our rates or else'.
... or Facebook ads don't work.
It really depends on what you are trying to sell. It's pretty obvious that car ads would work better on Google: when you are in the market for a new car, you'll definitely google review sites. A perfect hint to start showing car ads. I don't think Facebook has the data yet to detect that you are about to buy a car. If you start liking car reviews, maybe, but that's not a typical behavior. For other products (especial…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Direct follow up with people is expensive. From the WSJ: > GM spends about $40 million on its Facebook presence. About $10 million of that is paid to Facebook for advertising, the rest covers content created for the site, agencies that manage the content and daily maintenance of GM's pages, people familiar with the figures said.
That is insane. Only a bloated bohemoth could manage to spend $30 million on its Facebook-focused HR people. I admit I've never worked at GM, so if someone can tell me why I'm wrong, please do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or "Give us some stock at the opening price, or else." There is no way for GM to pull this kind of maneuver at this time without looking suspicious.
They have, and it does?