21–30 of 107 posts
I don't use Eat24 - but between this and their post on NSFW advertising - I feel like I should. Their content strategy people know what's up.
http://blog.eat24hours.com/how-to-advertise-on-a-porn-websit...
While I agree with the problem with paid ads and bots, it is funny that the blog uses like buttons and has facebook comments though they are leaving facebook.
Sounds like they're cutting off their nose to spite their face. Why not just go with the 100% free route and accept less engagement on their posts? They will still profit. People will still come to Facebook and search for them. I'm no fan of Facebook either, but this just seems childish. In the end, it's not Facebook who's hurt. It's them and their FB-only fans.
Every day that goes by I am more convinced that the Twitter stream is the best way to communicate, as a brand and as a consumer. On Twitter, as in Facebook, I follow/like whatever brands I find interesting, engaging and resonate with my believes/interests. If I see that a brand does/say something I don't like, I simply unfollow/unlike. What Facebook is doing is (over)engineering how my relationship with brands/people…
As an avid Twitter consumer without a Facebook account, I agree with you...for now.
But until Twitter actually makes enough money to support itself, let's not get too far ahead with the "they're doing it right!" argument. I see no way that they don't eventually end up in the same boat as Facebook, forcing promoters to compete for limited space.
Sounds like they're cutting off their nose to spite their face. Why not just go with the 100% free route and accept less engagement on their posts? They will still profit. People will still come to Facebook and search for them. I'm no fan of Facebook either, but this just seems childish. In the end, it's not Facebook who's hurt. It's them and their FB-only fans.
Because engagement with the people who like your page is purposely being dropped to 1-2%. So, those 10,000 likes you have won't really matter because only 100 or 200 people will see it. Unless you pay $20 to get all 10,000 to see it and get you another couple dozen likes.
I just don't understand why a company would want a Facebook page; consequently all this angst and drama leaves me befuddled. They have a website. They can show people who care pictures of food and whatever else they want. Why would they seek to dilute their web presence and message by helping another company profit from their content?
Facebook is taxing their channel more in order to capture more of this value for themselves, but there's still value left over for companies to generate and capture for themselves.
I just don't understand why a company would want a Facebook page; consequently all this angst and drama leaves me befuddled. They have a website. They can show people who care pictures of food and whatever else they want. Why would they seek to dilute their web presence and message by helping another company profit from their content?
Whether the company wants to build community, let customers know something (plumbing broken we are closed today) or simply show ads, facebook is a way to push it on customers. Website is not.
Most companies do not worry about "diluting" their web presence, they want to be shown as much as possible on as much as possible places.
Every day that goes by I am more convinced that the Twitter stream is the best way to communicate, as a brand and as a consumer. On Twitter, as in Facebook, I follow/like whatever brands I find interesting, engaging and resonate with my believes/interests. If I see that a brand does/say something I don't like, I simply unfollow/unlike. What Facebook is doing is (over)engineering how my relationship with brands/people…
Why do you want to engage with brands? I don't mean that to be antagonistic, I just don't have much understanding of that particular thing.
Why do you want to engage with brands?