Live data from Hacker News

After Facebook fails

blogs.law.harvard.edu

41–50 of 214 posts

Re: After Facebook fails

#41
post #23

Every time I read about how online targeted ads have poor returns for advertisers, I think to myself: "These advertisers know that the ads have low ROI because things are measureable online. How (in)effective would traditional advertisements prove to be, if they were as measurable as their online counterparts? How (in)effective would traditional advertisements prove to be, if they didn't interject themselves into the…

But advertisers aren't stupid. There must be a rational reason why they keep paying higher prices for traditional ads.

Firstly, they very well could be stupid.

Secondly, it depends what you mean by traditional ads. I loath television and spend far more time on the internet (and don't use adblock) and yet interstitial ads on the tv and radio (and on the net, eg youtube) are far more present in my mind than anything I've seen on the net.

In fact, apart from those silly bottom feeding ads about how some single mom found out some weird old tip and various medical professionals dislike her for it (because they're out to get you? I don't get those ads..) I can't recall a single web ad. I can tell you about Pizza Hut's cheap pizza Tuesdays though.

As for non interstitial ads, like print ads in newspapers, yeah, I imagine they're about as useful as internet ads.

Re: After Facebook fails

#43

Every time I read about how online targeted ads have poor returns for advertisers, I think to myself: "These advertisers know that the ads have low ROI because things are measureable online. How (in)effective would traditional advertisements prove to be, if they were as measurable as their online counterparts? How (in)effective would traditional advertisements prove to be, if they didn't interject themselves into the…

Two points: 1. There are lots of digital ad tools that have great ROI. No one clicks on ads....until that one time they do. Critics of digital advertising like to hone in on anecdotal examples of online ads failing to support their points. This blog post is a great example of that. 2. Your second point is why Madison Avenue was so horrified by Google when they started selling ads. Tracking the performance of each ind…

I agree, but I don't think things always have to be that way. I know a few people working on projects to improve the measurement capabilities for some kinds of off-line advertising.

Re: After Facebook fails

#44
Here's my take on Facebook (disclaimer: I work for Google, these opinions are purely my own and not representative of the company, yadda yadda yadda).

Display advertising works best when you have sufficient, quality inventory (publishers whose sites serve ads) such that you attract advertisers in sufficient quantity and quality. Targeting in display ads works because from the publishers, the intermediary has information to figure out what your interests are and so on. A common misconception from fearmongers is that your data is being sold. It is not. Advertisers are paying to have their creative put in front of a particular audience.

The most important strategic move Facebook made in the last few years (IMHO) is the Like button. Whether or not you "Like" things is irrelevant. The main purpose of that "Like" button is (IMHO) as a tracking cookie. Visit any Like-enabled site and you see a small piece of content from Facebook that tells Facebook all the sites you visit. It's a tracking cookie like any other and personally I have no problem with that. Just make no mistake why the Like button exists.

Facebook also has a wealth of information in terms of who your friends are, what your interests are, your relationship status and so on. It's this alleged treasure trove that people point to as the real value of Facebook (combined with the network effect).

I disagree. I think that information is largely useless for a number of reasons:

1. Because of social games and the like who your friends are on Facebook loses a lot of meaning. In the very least Facebook has to filter that information and determine who your real friends are (which it probably does anyway for News Feed filtering and so on);

2. Where people go and what people do is far more accurate than what people will tell you about themselves. As House says--or used to say--"people lie". When you ask someone their interests or opinions it will pass through various filters of what that person thinks you want to hear, what they want the world to believe, what they themselves wish they were and so on. It's a distortion.

It's a bit like dating or job hunting. You look at any online profile or CV and you'll see lies, distortions, omissions and so on. As Chris Rock said, for the first 6 months you're not dating them, you're dating their representative.

Facebook has no search engine. Whatever you say about the size of display ads, search advertising is still far bigger. With search you have intent. People want to find things by their actions. On Facebook ads are an annoyance.

It's the difference between wandering the streets shouting "does anybody want ice cream?" versus putting an ad in front of a bunch of people who have already told you that they're looking for ice cream.

Their mobile presence is at the behest of Apple, Google and (arguably) Microsoft. Mobile (IMHO) poses an existential risk to Facebook, which in part explains the exorbitant price tag paid for Instagram (it has nothing to do with any alleged "bubble"). Much of the engagement on Facebook is because of games. Those games are increasingly going mobile. This is bad for Facebook.

At $100B IPO valuation that put Facebook being worth half of Google with 5-8% of the revenue and significant strategic risks. Of course it was overvalued. It's still valuable but it will take some time to figure out exactly how much it's worth.

Re: After Facebook fails

#45
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…

One of the major problems with FB ad targeting is that a lot of it is keyword-driven without regard for context.

If I'm on Google searching for a product or service, the context is very likely "I want one of these" or "I'm curious about this", so displaying ads strictly by keyword works fairly well.

But if I mention something on Facebook, it's as likely to be negative as positive. If I've just said something critical about a particular ideology, an ad for "date [ideology] singles" is as you say "horrifically wrong" (especially since I'm happily married.)

Another contextual issue FB gets wrong is timing. Often I'm mentioning something I already own or something I've just completed. Telling me about a restaurant right after dinner, or tax software right after I finish my taxes, is not likely to be relevant to me (whereas if I type "restaurant" or "taxes" into Google it almost definitely is.)

Sometimes it comes down to advertiser stupidity (forgetting to check if I'm married, for example.) But the fundamental problem is that judging intent is a hard problem for a computer. It's easy to write a filter that figures out what I'm interested in when I type a query into Google; it's hard to write one for a status update I type into Facebook.

Re: After Facebook fails

#46
post #44

Here's my take on Facebook (disclaimer: I work for Google, these opinions are purely my own and not representative of the company, yadda yadda yadda). Display advertising works best when you have sufficient, quality inventory (publishers whose sites serve ads) such that you attract advertisers in sufficient quantity and quality. Targeting in display ads works because from the publishers, the intermediary has informat…

Agree with just about all of that.

> "Their mobile presence is at the behest of Apple, Google and (arguably) Microsoft."

A majority of non-techy types I know bought smart phones because they "do facebook". There is a deeply symbiotic relationship there, and woe is the mobile maker that couldn't provide a Facebook app.

Re: After Facebook fails

#47
post #31
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?

I can't see Google going for that one, somehow.

Re: After Facebook fails

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two points: 1. There are lots of digital ad tools that have great ROI. No one clicks on ads....until that one time they do. Critics of digital advertising like to hone in on anecdotal examples of online ads failing to support their points. This blog post is a great example of that. 2. Your second point is why Madison Avenue was so horrified by Google when they started selling ads. Tracking the performance of each ind…

I agree, but I don't think things always have to be that way. I know a few people working on projects to improve the measurement capabilities for some kinds of off-line advertising.

That's terrific. I suspect the folks selling those products will be hugely resistant at first.

Re: After Facebook fails

#49
post #44

Here's my take on Facebook (disclaimer: I work for Google, these opinions are purely my own and not representative of the company, yadda yadda yadda). Display advertising works best when you have sufficient, quality inventory (publishers whose sites serve ads) such that you attract advertisers in sufficient quantity and quality. Targeting in display ads works because from the publishers, the intermediary has informat…

great analysis. So following your argument it seems as if facebook realized quite a while ago, that the information it collects is not (relationship status, location, etc.) is nowhere enough to deduct targeted ads. hence they came up with some sort of tracking cookie disguised as a like button. I gotta give them credit for that, that is ingenious.

Re: After Facebook fails

#50
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…

One of the major problems with FB ad targeting is that a lot of it is keyword-driven without regard for context. If I'm on Google searching for a product or service, the context is very likely "I want one of these" or "I'm curious about this", so displaying ads strictly by keyword works fairly well. But if I mention something on Facebook, it's as likely to be negative as positive. If I've just said something critical…

Facebook advertising isn't keyword driven, it's interest driven. AFAIK Facebook doesn't parse your status updates to find keywords -- they look at what you have Liked.
Post reply on HN