Facebook Starts Hosting “Instant Articles”

#1

Post by spicyj » Wed, May 13, 2015, 4:45 AM UTC

Facebook Starts Hosting “Instant Articles”
techcrunch.com

Re: Facebook Starts Hosting “Instant Articles”

#2

Post by phreeza » Wed, May 13, 2015, 6:52 AM UTC

Sadly, this looks like one more step in the walled garden web direction, somewhat like AOL sites back in the day. I am amazed publishers are apparently going along with this. They must be very desperate for views if they are willing to relinquish this much control.

Re: Facebook Starts Hosting “Instant Articles”

#3

Post by joelrunyon » Wed, May 13, 2015, 7:33 AM UTC

If this catches on, I don't see how it does anything but set a very bad precedent.

Re: Facebook Starts Hosting “Instant Articles”

#4

Post by bobbles » Wed, May 13, 2015, 7:47 AM UTC

joelrunyon wrote: post #3

If this catches on, I don't see how it does anything but set a very bad precedent.

Bad for who though?

Isn't it good for the writers? More people viewing the content?

Isn't it good for the users? A better experience?

Re: Facebook Starts Hosting “Instant Articles”

#5

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 13, 2015, 7:52 AM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Starts Hosting “Instant Articles”

#6

Post by dagw » Wed, May 13, 2015, 7:56 AM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #5

[deleted]

What's the benefit here?

70% of a big number is more than 100% of a small number?

Re: Facebook Starts Hosting “Instant Articles”

#7

Post by mseebach » Wed, May 13, 2015, 7:59 AM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #5

[deleted]

> but why in the world would publishers give up 30% of their revenue

For a better experience for the user that will plausibly lead to better "click-through" rates?

I often don't click on articles on Facebook because I can't be bothered to wait 15-20 seconds for the page to load and stop re-flowing itself, then dismiss the "we use cookies" and the "subscribe to our newsletter" pop-over.

Re: Facebook Starts Hosting “Instant Articles”

#8

Post by throwaway2048 » Wed, May 13, 2015, 8:01 AM UTC

bobbles wrote: post #4

joelrunyon wrote: post #3

If this catches on, I don't see how it does anything but set a very bad precedent.

Bad for who though? Isn't it good for the writers? More people viewing the content? Isn't it good for the users? A better experience?

ah yes, thankfully facebook has only our best interests at heart.

Re: Facebook Starts Hosting “Instant Articles”

#9

Post by smil » Wed, May 13, 2015, 8:02 AM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #5

[deleted]

I read about this earlier today on /r/contentstrategist and they were saying that videos posted directly to Facebook get far, far more "plays" than if they are posted as links to YouTube. This is thanks to Facebook's AutoPlay for native videos, and whether people actually watch the videos more... Is not really interesting because plays/impressions is the metric by which a boss measures the marketing teams work, or how clients are billed.

So, this works because Facebook makes native content more prominent than linked content, which is filtered out.

Re: Facebook Starts Hosting “Instant Articles”

#10

Post by mcintyre1994 » Wed, May 13, 2015, 8:02 AM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #5

[deleted]

Um, no?

> Ads can appear inside Instant Articles, with publishers keeping 100% of revenue if they sell them, and Facebook keeps its standard 30% if it sells the ads, as the Wall Street Journal previously reported.