Live data from Hacker News

The Facebook Fallacy

technologyreview.com

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: The Facebook Fallacy

#31
Here's the thing: I hate ads. All forms of ads.

The reason I hate ads is that 99% of the time are interrupting me and telling me about things I do not want to know about. If I am chatting with a friend on Facebook, there's no way any kind of ad is going to do anything but get in my way. If, however, I am actually looking to solve a problem, I go to a search engine and start bringing up web pages. In this scenario I am actively seeking something -- perhaps something an ad might be able to help with.

So content ads on informative sites and as part of search seems to me like a lesser evil of all ads. I have a few sites and ideally I'd like to remove all Adsense from my site and replace it with links to stuff people want. The problem is that there's such a long-tail phenomenon going on when people go looking for stuff. For instance, if I have a informative site on dinosaurs I know people coming there via a search engine want to know more about dinosaurs. But would they like a book? A museum trip? Tickets to a dinosaur movie? A college education in paleontology? The answer is yes: some of them would like all of that stuff. And even more. The only way that I know how to assist these people is somehow rotating ads that solve a large variety of problems. Ideally you'd use some kind of machine learning to gather what you can and continue to optimize. Google does this for me, so while I hate ads, providing people with a _little_ bit of randomized assistance from a large catalog of options in a location where they are already looking for stuff seems like a pretty good deal for both the reader and me.

In social media you are no longer trying to respond to a searching reader. Instead you have readers that are doing other things that you are trying to interrupt. Perhaps using their friends as interruptions might work. Perhaps if you only interrupt by providing material related to what they are already doing. But no matter how you hack it, as a social media advertiser your game is to take a reader that is doing one thing and get them doing something else. We've gone from ad-supported radio and television, where listening to the ads were a form of saying "thank you" to the advertiser for providing the material, to a place where advertisers are using technology to try to pry into and control every part of our lives. And yes, it's because of everybody wanting things for free. This is not a happy symbiotic relationship anymore.

ADD: In fact, it's mind-boggling if you think about it. Facebook is trying to take a billion people and make them do things they would not normally do. Yes, people waste their time anyway, but not everybody, not all the time. Wonder how much lost productivity are they creating? How many man-years? How many people making purchases for things they never wanted? How many people playing games with imaginary farms and such for hundreds or thousands of hours? People said the television had an on-off switch, and so does the net. But people are social animals, and the net is the way we communicate. If all of your friends and family are on Facebook, you're going to want to know what they are doing. Facebook uses your friendships against you in order to purposely divert you from things you'd normally do so that you'll spend all of your time on their site playing, gossiping, and purchasing. Ouch. Doesn't sound like an imminent failure. Sounds like a new form of crack. If that much social damage were done by a drug, it would have easily been outlawed by now.

Re: The Facebook Fallacy

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you willing to make a $1 bet predicting the general demise of the Internet advertising business? (I think the article called it a "collapse")? I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what concrete outcome you are predicting based on your post. Are you predicting a 1:0.9 ratio? 1:0.001? 1:1.1?

I'm pretty sure he wasn't predicting a demise, just margins that won't be as sexy.

Well, the first line of the article is

> Facebook not only is on course to go bust but will take the rest of the ad-supported Web with it.

Perhaps that's just a juicy opening line to draw people in to the article - but it sure sounds like predicting a demise to me.

Some of the things the article says are reasonable - but I wouldn't bet a dollar on facebook going bust and taking the entire ad-supported web with it.

Re: The Facebook Fallacy

#33
post #7
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not just health. look at Google Now on android 4.1. they're going to know everywhere you went and a lot more info. sooner or later, this will likely lead to targeted ads if they can deliver high-value ads the user actually wants. ie., [you're driving past your favorite pizza shop] Pizza Boy is offering $5 off today your normal order. Should i place the order for you?" the reason most everyone will opt in is beca…

Sharing location with apps is trivial to avoid (just don't use them if you're not comfortable), it's not an iphone secret file that stores everything until someone exposes it (zing!). Besides, 'you are on main street' vs 'your daughter has herpes' are far different levels of invading privacy, the former is not a particular secret at all.

But 'you are at the herpes clinic with your daughter' is more like the latter than the former, right?

Re: The Facebook Fallacy

#34

It's not that internet advertising isn't effective. It's that all the content it's wrapped around is too engaging. The reason ads in real-life are effective is that they traditionally haven't had to compete for your attention. Examples: (1) Standing on a subway platform you are looking straight at a piece of advertising for minutes until your train arrives. (2) Driving down the road, you're staring at a billboard for…

I find it fascinating that, with all the talk about new and creative ways to do ad business, the only ads that I find myself interested in are Youtube ads, which are, in some way, a very old school and tv-like technique.

I tune out ads on Google search, on websites, and ads on Facebook are about as relevant to me as the spam I get in my inbox ([0]). But, on Youtube, I'm stuck with them, so I might as well try to enjoy them. The fact that they are somehow relevant also helps.

[0] Facebook (or advertisers) seems to infer that if I'm in Sweden, I'm interested in ads in swedish. That's kind of unfortunate. Plus, even ignoring that, just like spam, half of them are just referrals to AdultFriendFinder or the likes.

Re: The Facebook Fallacy

#35
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens to all the newspapers/ news sites that run on ads? Advertising money has allowed the public access to non-subscription news on the web for some time now. If you take all that money away, doesn't the free content mostly dry up?

That's where we NEED to move toward some easier way of frictionless micro-transactions that are secure, safe, and ubiquitous... how to do it is unclear, but perhaps a mega-site like Facebook could create such a thing.

If you are referring to micro-transactions whereby readers pay content authors, tipjoy and others have already tried the "e-tip" model and failed.

Also, paypal's donate feature has existed for some time now but it doesn't seem to be able to replace ads. If anybody could implement the safe, seamless microtransaction model I'd think it'd be paypal as they have the existing infrastructure already. Either they have overlooked it or they've decided that the model wouldn't work.

Re: The Facebook Fallacy

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't predicting a demise, just margins that won't be as sexy.

Well, the first line of the article is > Facebook not only is on course to go bust but will take the rest of the ad-supported Web with it. Perhaps that's just a juicy opening line to draw people in to the article - but it sure sounds like predicting a demise to me. Some of the things the article says are reasonable - but I wouldn't bet a dollar on facebook going bust and taking the entire ad-supported web with it.

> it sure sounds like predicting a demise to me.

He is. Of Facebook.

Facebook is not cheap to run. If revenues fall and costs do not ...

Re: The Facebook Fallacy

#37
I think facebook should try a groupon style model. They have locations and intentions of users. They should just have a deal feed, or some type of email listing with possible low prices they could get if they join in a deal. To filter it better, maybe ask each user for a list of things they want cheap.

Re: The Facebook Fallacy

#38
Why can't Facebook start charging for its API, and for business pages? Banner ads were big in the 90s before people realized they were that effective. I don't see why Facebook would need to rely on them forever.

Re: The Facebook Fallacy

#39

Here's the thing: I hate ads. All forms of ads. The reason I hate ads is that 99% of the time are interrupting me and telling me about things I do not want to know about. If I am chatting with a friend on Facebook, there's no way any kind of ad is going to do anything but get in my way. If, however, I am actually looking to solve a problem, I go to a search engine and start bringing up web pages. In this scenario I a…

You remind me of Needium http://needium.com/

Someone posts "aargh damn I'm locked out" on Facebook - Needium converts that into a lead for local businesses.

Think that's interesting because it seems to me to be the essence of the discussion - active vs passive. You can actively solve your own problem by going to Google and / or you can take the passive step of complaining about your situation on Facebook and have Needium convert that into a lead for you. This passive model of solving your own problems seems to me to be pretty weak but perhaps it works if your have have a large, docile audience ?

Re: The Facebook Fallacy

#40

Here's the thing: I hate ads. All forms of ads. The reason I hate ads is that 99% of the time are interrupting me and telling me about things I do not want to know about. If I am chatting with a friend on Facebook, there's no way any kind of ad is going to do anything but get in my way. If, however, I am actually looking to solve a problem, I go to a search engine and start bringing up web pages. In this scenario I a…

I have an idea: how about a "this is interesting, save it for later" button on ads? So if something comes up that's useful, you can minimize the distraction for now. Maybe it would wait a while to put another ad up. Advertisers still pay per click in the "looking at it later" phase.

Of course you would need a natural way to put them back in front of the user. Some of my app ideas already have a natural "deal with it later" mode. I'm sure Facebook could come up with something.

Thoughts?

Post reply on HN