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

141–150 of 214 posts

Re: After Facebook fails

#141

Post by greedo »

microtherion wrote: post #97
alanfang wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 have always listed myself as married (even as public information), yet I see a dating ad on my sidebar. The two top ads were for high heel shoes. Either FB has me pegged as a two timing trannie, or their targeting is really poor.

This doesn't have to be a case of poor targeting by FB; it could be broadcast targeting by the advertiser who isn't as selective as we would expect.

And for brand awareness advertising, I could see that it might be worth it, depending upon the cost. I have no intention of using eHarmony (happily married here), but I'm aware of them due to both online and offline advertising. If a coworker asks me about online dating, I'm sure I'll remember eHarmony. That brand awareness has obvious value to advertisers, and if the cost is in line with their budget, it explains the "mis-targeted" ads.

Re: After Facebook fails

#142

Post by Random_Person »

jackalope wrote: post #131
mike-cardwell wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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" I understand that you work for Google and that not holding this opinion would mean that you have to conclude that your employer is also very much in the wrong. But how do you justify it? It's clearly not informati…

Agreed on all points, but websites that feature Like buttons or Analytics are complicit in this dubiously ethical behaviour. Webmasters should also be doing more to protect the privacy of their users. Sadly, even the ones that are supposed to be operating within FERPA or HIPAA restrictions in the US ignore this duty.

Are there better alternatives? (I ask this question honestly)

As a web master of a very small, personal site, I find that running AddThis or something similar to be vital in generating traffic. Giving users a one click option to share my pages makes it much more likely that they will. Without that option, I have to resort to spamming message boards, Twitter, Facebook, etc manually, in order to drive traffic. I am not opposed to that option, as my site has no way of generating revenue and likely never will... I'm just looking for engagement from readers and ways to generate more readers.

Re: After Facebook fails

#143

Post by crusso »

gvb wrote: post #136
mike-cardwell wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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" I understand that you work for Google and that not holding this opinion would mean that you have to conclude that your employer is also very much in the wrong. But how do you justify it? It's clearly not informati…

It is MUCH more than a tracking cookie. The more useful XFBML version is a snippet of JavaScript. JavaScript can do a lot more than a cookie. http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/plugins/like/?... (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insert…

That's a decent chunk of minified js. Seems like quite a bit of code just to be able to tell FB whether or not you "like" something.

My biggest problem with it is that consumers have no clue whatsoever that they're being tracked that way. Even typical web site owners don't really realize that the little piece of code they copy/pasted to get the FB Like button exposes their visitors to so much intrusive js.

I don't have a problem with people being tracked if they feel that they're getting reasonable value out of the relationship, but the current situation is just very sneaky.

Re: After Facebook fails

#144

Post by is74 »

cletus wrote: 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…

A minor note about point 1. It seems very easy to figure out who the real friends are through activity -- e.g., the people whose posts you comment on or whose pictures and profiles you view. So this information doesn't lose much of its value.

Re: After Facebook fails

#145

Post by suking »

brandnewlow wrote: post #13
hkmurakami wrote: post #6

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…

Offline ads for direct response are easily measurable with tracking numbers. Branding ads - well - I have no clue how they track any of that - but then again how do you track a CPM media buy just designed to increase brand awareness online... (note: I come from the DM world).

Re: After Facebook fails

#146

Post by digitist »

maxerickson wrote: post #138
jonnathanson wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The botttom line with Facebook is that it went public far too early. It doesn't have its footing on solid ground as far as revenue growth, stability, and profitability are concerned. Its advertising model, dependent as it is on these much-maligned targeted display ads, is promising -- but has a lot of kinks to be worked out. The more I look at the Facebook IPO, the more I don't see the conventional narrative, i.e., t…

So by saying that you think they went public too early, you are maybe implying that they could have made much more money later, or maybe implying that public perception of the stock will interfere with their ability to operate. Are either of those things true? Is there some other difficulty?

From the standpoint of the primary stakeholders (founders, VCs, etc.) and their best monetary interests, I'd argue that FB went public at approximately the right time. Why would they risk a more delayed IPO (and their ability to cash out at such an overinflated valuation)? In an IPO _now_ the risk of whether they can monetize falls to the public while stakeholders cash out on the basis of positive future speculation. In a delayed IPO, the stakeholders assume the risk of being able to actually figure out a revenue generating alternative to the diminishing ad service before user growth flattens---if unable to---panic/skepticism would ensue and the company's valuation (and stakeholder investment) would decline.

Re: After Facebook fails

#147

Post by PhrosTT »

jacquesm wrote: post #117
cletus wrote: 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…

> Whether or not you "Like" things is irrelevant. The main purpose of that "Like" button is (IMHO) as a tracking cookie. Exactly. Ditto google's 'free' analytics, every adsense impression and the +1 button. Nice to see someone working at google establish this in such a straightforward way, such candor is pretty rare. Most of the time all you get is some marketing bull about how you're being enabled to share your favo…

> Ditto google's 'free' analytics

Or being logged into Chrome.

Re: After Facebook fails

#148

Post by gulbrandr »

jackalope wrote: post #126
gulbrandr wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AdBlockPlus and Ghostery are always the two plugins I install first on my Firefox. http://adblockplus.org/en/ http://www.ghostery.com/

I like RequestPolicy because it blacklists all external domains by default and it's easy to whitelist them as needed. https://www.requestpolicy.com/

After using NoScript for while, I realized that it was painful to whitelist every website I visited. My goal was different, I only want to block tracking scripts and cookies. This is why Ghostery is best suited to my needs.

Re: After Facebook fails

#149

Post by PhrosTT »

sgift wrote: post #77
polemic wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but did you notice how they use Facebook? I've watched (and asked) several of my non-techy friends and there reaction was always the same: "Yeah, I just update my feed, look for updates of my friends and that's it." I don't see how Facebook wants to make money of such an usage pattern, so at the moment it doesn't help them very much that people have smart phones to "do facebook".

But facebook gets to see who is where at all times...

Re: After Facebook fails

#150

Post by truncate »

gulbrandr wrote: post #120
jacquesm wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whether or not you "Like" things is irrelevant. The main purpose of that "Like" button is (IMHO) as a tracking cookie. Exactly. Ditto google's 'free' analytics, every adsense impression and the +1 button. Nice to see someone working at google establish this in such a straightforward way, such candor is pretty rare. Most of the time all you get is some marketing bull about how you're being enabled to share your favo…

AdBlockPlus and Ghostery are always the two plugins I install first on my Firefox. http://adblockplus.org/en/ http://www.ghostery.com/

Also Adveristy and Anti Social subscription for AdBlock. http://code.google.com/p/adversity/
Post reply on HN