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

A Breakup Letter to Facebook from Eat24

blog.eat24hours.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

Re: A Breakup Letter to Facebook from Eat24

#41

Post by themodelplumber »

protomyth wrote: post #36

I have a question on this. Let's say small college puts a post on Facebook like an event, financial aid warning, or a school close announcement. If I read this right, then that post will not be distributed to everyone following the college? In contrast, on Twitter, a post will go to all followers. Is this right?

The Facebook part is right. The Twitter part really depends on what "go to" means. They may not scroll back far enough to see your last post, and thus may not see the post at all, but I believe it's shown in the feed of 100% of your followers. I'd be interested to know otherwise. My own reach through Twitter is about half as good as it is on FB, and I have followers who seem way more interested in what I do than my FB fans. On FB, I seem to have way more success posting things personally than I do on my business page.

Edit: I post my stuff to Google+ too, especially groups that seem like there's some interest in the subject of my post. I'm happy enough with the results (from my analytics) that I'll keep doing it.

Re: A Breakup Letter to Facebook from Eat24

#42

Post by nknighthb »

ryandrake wrote: post #37
belorn wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or Eat24 is mad that Facebook are demanding money to carry Eat24 contents for free. If spotify started to demand money for artists rather than pay them, artists would start to get angry.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between " ads" and " 's content". Facebook is a promotional platform. Content posted there by companies are advertisements, nearly by definition.

People like/follow accounts of companies on social networks in order to consume the content those accounts post. Certainly this includes marketing material, but a key distinction between this and ordinary ads is that people have made a deliberate decision, "I wish to see content from this company".

That content becomes part of the reason people spend time on the platform, adding more opportunities for Facebook to sell actual ads (including to competitors, I might add). The network effect applies to companies, too!

Facebook is now denying that content to users who have said they want it, and destroying most of the value to the companies of creating that content. This is a reversal of their prior policies (thus a bait-and-switch), dishonest (if they don't want companies participating in their social network, they should just ban them and make them run ordinary ads), and just plain ol' stupid (because they're deliberately damaging their network and their image).

Re: A Breakup Letter to Facebook from Eat24

#43

Post by zacinbusiness »

joelrunyon wrote: post #9

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.

I've never heard of this brand before today. And thus I'd never seen this post before you posted it here. Now, my mission is to move to a city that is served by Eat24 and to give them my money. These guys are very smart - they had a problem (we need to increase ad revenue and ROI), they found an inventive solution (advertise on porn sites, the demographics add up and there's NO competition), and they executed a great plan by engaging with the sites and the porn stars themselves. Very smart indeed!

Re: A Breakup Letter to Facebook from Eat24

#44

Post by grey-area »

WoodenChair wrote: post #13
peteretep wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point you are missing: this business considers itself to be a content creator and value adder, and they do that because Facebook has previously encouraged that. Now Facebook are saying that they don't care how compelling your content is, if you are commercial in any way, you have to pay. That's not how a social network is meant to work.

Who exactly defines "how a social network is meant to work?" Seeing as Facebook is one of the two most defining social networks of the social network era I think they at least have a say.

Who exactly defines "how a social network is meant to work?"

The users do. Facebook will see declining participation if they keep taking user-hostile actions like this. People need to feel they are in charge of their feed (at least mostly in charge), but if they no longer control who sees their content, or which content they see, and hence become unhappy using the service or use it less, that's going to be a big problem for FB.

Re: A Breakup Letter to Facebook from Eat24

#45

Post by sergiotapia »

techaddict009 wrote: post #38
protomyth wrote: post #36

I have a question on this. Let's say small college puts a post on Facebook like an event, financial aid warning, or a school close announcement. If I read this right, then that post will not be distributed to everyone following the college? In contrast, on Twitter, a post will go to all followers. Is this right?

Yes it 100 Percent right. It will reach to approx 10% of people who have liked the fan page.

Wow, I just learned about this today. What's the point of having a Facebook page then? Sounds like a gigantic waste of time.

Re: A Breakup Letter to Facebook from Eat24

#46

Post by CaveTech »

techaddict009 wrote: post #38
protomyth wrote: post #36

I have a question on this. Let's say small college puts a post on Facebook like an event, financial aid warning, or a school close announcement. If I read this right, then that post will not be distributed to everyone following the college? In contrast, on Twitter, a post will go to all followers. Is this right?

Yes it 100 Percent right. It will reach to approx 10% of people who have liked the fan page.

Lately it's even less (4-6%)

Re: A Breakup Letter to Facebook from Eat24

#47

Post by lotharbot »

notahacker wrote: post #39
JohnTHaller wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You follow a band you like because you want to know about their upcoming performances and new music. You follow an artist you like to see new stuff they're working on and when they post it online. You follow your favorite family owned restaurant to see what specials they have and when they're doing a wine tasting. You follow your favorite local bar to find out when trivia night is. There are a ton of reasons to follo…

To be fair, half the time people sign up for purely symbolic reasons, or to participate in a "like us on Facebook to win.." competition and not necessarily because they want daily ads for $brand served to them in between their friends' baby pics and obscure links posted by some guy they once met at an airport. If you really want regular updates from a vendor you sign up to their mailing list...

> "If you really want regular updates from a vendor you sign up to their mailing list..."

Or you follow them on social media because you use it more regularly than you use e-mail, or you find it more convenient.

Re: A Breakup Letter to Facebook from Eat24

#48

Post by MicroBerto »

300bps wrote: post #25
JohnTHaller wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're right, but you didn't point out the other obvious thing that some people aren't getting: it takes effort to properly post things on Facebook. Add that to only 1-2% of your hard-won subscribers are actually seeing it and it makes it really not worth it.

Has anyone really looked at their Facebook page? Their engagement is low for a good reason - they simply aren't good at posting on Facebook.

Go look at their page and tell me: if you were in charge of Facebook's algorithm, would you put that stuff on every person's feed without charging a bunch of money???

I'm by no means an expert, but I know that their posts aren't exactly making me interested in ordering food or talking to them.

They do, however, have some posts that went viral, but they're really not suited towards their customer base.

It's just not a good feed. IMHO, and obviously also in Facebook's, they don't "deserve" any more attention when there are tons of more successful alternatives for Facebook to show.

Re: A Breakup Letter to Facebook from Eat24

#49

Post by wingerlang »

sergiotapia wrote: post #45
techaddict009 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it 100 Percent right. It will reach to approx 10% of people who have liked the fan page.

Wow, I just learned about this today. What's the point of having a Facebook page then? Sounds like a gigantic waste of time.

I think that the more people who 'interact' with the post the more it will spread to other who also like the page.

Re: A Breakup Letter to Facebook from Eat24

#50

Post by frostmatthew »

sergiotapia wrote: post #45
techaddict009 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it 100 Percent right. It will reach to approx 10% of people who have liked the fan page.

Wow, I just learned about this today. What's the point of having a Facebook page then? Sounds like a gigantic waste of time.

Well you can pay to promote a post so it will have a higher reach. Businesses should be more appreciative of the fact that 5-10% reach for free is far more free reach than you will get with TV, radio, Google ads, or anything else short of putting flyers on telephone poles.
Post reply on HN