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

After Facebook fails

blogs.law.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 214 posts

Re: After Facebook fails

#31

Post by hammock »

polemic wrote: post #16

I have no idea if Facebook is valued correctly or not, however I think this misses a vital point. Facebook is not nearly the same as other web ventures. It's ability to target ads seems secondary to this: From http://www.kenburbary.com/2011/03/facebook-demographics-revi... , slightly out of date, but still useful: - Average user visits the site 40 times per month - Average user spends an 23 minutes (23:20 to be preci…

How many of those users use adblockers? What if the most popular browser started shipping with adblocking enabled out of the box?

Re: After Facebook fails

#32

Post by Smerity »

alanfang wrote: post #18
Smerity wrote: post #3

He points out some of the terribly targeted ads that Facebook pushes on users. I think this is a huge issue that's not discussed enough. Facebook has all the data but no real targeting. This stems from two core issues: 1) they don't seem to use their immense datasets as effectively as Google does and most importantly 2) they rely on the advertisers to target their ads. Advertisers, even when handed the best demograph…

Based off the ads the author cites in the article the issue is the lack of data, not poor targeting by advertisers. For example the author wouldn't see the "Boyfriend Wanted" ad if he listed himself as married in his Facebook profile (Facebook aggressively forbids dating ads targeted towards people who list themselves as married or in a relationship). All online advertising platforms rely on advertisers to target the…

I can tell you my profile is full of information on me yet looking at the ads I see on Facebook right now: a) "Join the Army as a Truck Mechanic" (university graduate in IT...) b) "Study Marine Biology" c) "Cheap baby strollers" d) "Learn how to make money trading on the Forex market".

These are just the most egregious examples -- most others are just for products and services I'm not particularly interested in.

If it can't accurately target ads for me then I fear greatly for Facebook's business model...

[If you want to see what information they have to target ads, feel free to check out http://www.facebook.com/smerity -- next to all my details are public as I assume if it's on Facebook it's public]

Re: After Facebook fails

#33

Post by sanswork »

hammock wrote: post #31
polemic wrote: post #16

I have no idea if Facebook is valued correctly or not, however I think this misses a vital point. Facebook is not nearly the same as other web ventures. It's ability to target ads seems secondary to this: From http://www.kenburbary.com/2011/03/facebook-demographics-revi... , slightly out of date, but still useful: - Average user visits the site 40 times per month - Average user spends an 23 minutes (23:20 to be preci…

How many of those users use adblockers? What if the most popular browser started shipping with adblocking enabled out of the box?

Given the proliferation of random toolbars on the computers of my family and friends and I would say almost no one in the grand scheme of things.

Re: After Facebook fails

#34

Post by ktizo »

psc wrote: post #20
ktizo wrote: post #9

I could see facebook being replaced by nothing more fancy than a web design app with a social webring gizmo.

Facebook's advantage over any competitor is that everyone is already on Facebook. I could see early adopters moving to what you're describing, but it would take ages to move the other 90% of the users over. So at least for the next few years, it's unlikely that people will transition en masse to a completely new service.

That was also Yahoo's advantage for a while.

My point is that the underlying functionalities of Facebook are features of the web in general, not of Facebook specifically.

Facebook made them simple to use and put them all in one place and now has grabbed an impressive amount of share as a result, but they are not on the most solid of ground, as their social functionality could easily be swallowed by the browser itself, or by a clever lump of javascript.

And remember, the inline advertising is only required by their business model, not by the functionality of the service itself.

[edit] That said, I sort of agree with you that they probably have a few years before the mass exodus, I wouldn't give them a lot more than that however.

Re: After Facebook fails

#35

Post by Smerity »

kposehn wrote: post #30
Smerity wrote: post #3

He points out some of the terribly targeted ads that Facebook pushes on users. I think this is a huge issue that's not discussed enough. Facebook has all the data but no real targeting. This stems from two core issues: 1) they don't seem to use their immense datasets as effectively as Google does and most importantly 2) they rely on the advertisers to target their ads. Advertisers, even when handed the best demograph…

> Facebook has all the data but no real targeting In general, this is incorrect. What you see as poorly targeted ads are those where the advertiser does a poor job, not Facebook. The tools are there and the most successful advertisers use them.

I believe we're arguing the same point. Advertisers are the ones who do the targeting and even with the tools Facebook provides, they make terrible targeting decisions.

It doesn't matter if good advertisers use it properly, the majority do not. If Facebook don't prevent these poorly targeted ads then they can't guarantee any level of targeting at all on their site. This means that users are desensitized to the ads shown there, decreasing their value as an adspace.

Re: After Facebook fails

#36

Post by clarky07 »

If he put that he was married on the site, he wouldn't get the dating ads. I just checked my facebook (for the first time in awhile) and 3 of 4 ads where things that made sense and were interesting to me.

I personally don't think Facebook is worth nearly as much as their current valuation, but as long as they have 900 million users who average a 1/2 hour a day on the site they are worth quite a bit. As for the targeted ads, I'd much rather have ads for things that are interesting to me than for things that aren't.

Re: After Facebook fails

#37

Post by glesica »

Smerity wrote: post #3

He points out some of the terribly targeted ads that Facebook pushes on users. I think this is a huge issue that's not discussed enough. Facebook has all the data but no real targeting. This stems from two core issues: 1) they don't seem to use their immense datasets as effectively as Google does and most importantly 2) they rely on the advertisers to target their ads. Advertisers, even when handed the best demograph…

Based on all the anecdotes floating around, this one included, I wonder if part of the problem is that the demographic groups advertisers (that use Facebook) really seem to want to target are the most resistant to the ads. This would then lead advertisers to broaden their targeting to the point where Facebook's enormous trove of data is basically useless.

Who cares if your ad is being shown to the exact 50,000 people on Facebook who are a perfect fit for your product if nearly all of them refuse to click on it? So you broaden your demographic selections, the ad goes out to 500,000 people now, but now your product has no relevance for the vast majority of the people seeing it.

Not sure, just thinking "out loud".

Re: After Facebook fails

#38

Post by AngrySkillzz »

polemic wrote: post #16

I have no idea if Facebook is valued correctly or not, however I think this misses a vital point. Facebook is not nearly the same as other web ventures. It's ability to target ads seems secondary to this: From http://www.kenburbary.com/2011/03/facebook-demographics-revi... , slightly out of date, but still useful: - Average user visits the site 40 times per month - Average user spends an 23 minutes (23:20 to be preci…

This is sort of what I'm thinking. Everyone is claiming Facebook ads don't work because they're improperly targeted, people don't look at them, people don't browse Facebook with "intent," etc. This is a the supposed "failure" of advertising on Facebook.

But what about traditional ads, say a television commercial or a radio ad? Aren't they more expensive, with a more limited and less targeted audience? Isn't the intent to purchase missing there as well? Why is it the case that Facebook advertising is a failure when it seems that it should be at least as (or more) effective than traditional advertising?

Am I missing something?

Re: After Facebook fails

#39

Post by waterlesscloud »

Smerity wrote: post #35
kposehn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook has all the data but no real targeting In general, this is incorrect. What you see as poorly targeted ads are those where the advertiser does a poor job, not Facebook. The tools are there and the most successful advertisers use them.

I believe we're arguing the same point. Advertisers are the ones who do the targeting and even with the tools Facebook provides, they make terrible targeting decisions. It doesn't matter if good advertisers use it properly, the majority do not. If Facebook don't prevent these poorly targeted ads then they can't guarantee any level of targeting at all on their site. This means that users are desensitized to the ads sh…

It's almost as if there's a business opportunity here.

Re: After Facebook fails

#40

Post by paulgb »

sanswork wrote: post #33
hammock wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many of those users use adblockers? What if the most popular browser started shipping with adblocking enabled out of the box?

Given the proliferation of random toolbars on the computers of my family and friends and I would say almost no one in the grand scheme of things.

The people who use adblockers are probably the people who are least likely to click on ads anyway.
Post reply on HN