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

Seriously? Ads?

blog.dinkevich.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 229 posts

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#101

Post by tomp »

TimJRobinson wrote: post #91

100% spot on, Facebook could see massive profits if it pulls off any or all of the following: - Upon logging in Facebook lets me know my favourite band is playing in a few weeks, tickets are $25 and I can purchase with one click. - A new episode of Dexter comes out, Facebook knows I love dexter and thus notifies me and allows me to watch instantly in my browser for just $1. - A games company (steam, humblebundle, bli…

I reckon most people would quickly turn off this feature after it would produce more than a few bad predictions/recommendations in a row.

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#102

Post by SonicSoul »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #83
SonicSoul wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Credit cards suck for many reasons other than just convenience of use. Credit card companies are big cartels with hefty fees to retailers, slow and unpredictable turnaround between when a payment is made, and when it gets to retailers bank, and infrastructure that's not well suited for micro payments, or peer to peer payments. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/02/ff_futureofmoney/all/1

It depends if we are talking about FB simply providing a service for taking payments similar to google checkout (using existing Cards) or whether you suggest that they try to replace card altogether. In order to do that FB would be looking at setting up massive infrastructure and essentially having a "banking division" that would get bogged down in regulations and bureaucracy.

my point is, credit cards suck, and there is plenty of space for alternatives. There is a race in peer to peer and micro-payment space, and currently paypal is the leader, but it is far from perfect. I'm not a big fan of FB, but i think this article is on point, and they are well suited to enter this space. Being able to validate identity (thanks to all the information), and having a brand and cash to back it up. As for the new division, infrastructure, and bureaucracy, it would boil down to how well they can execute.

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#103

Post by hwatson »

djeikyb wrote: post #70
Adirael wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My VISA (chip + PIN) works without any problems for online purchases. Some sites even transfer me to my bank's payment gateway that sends me an SMS with a number in order to be able to pay. I don't have a credit card. I know a lot of people who does but rarely uses them, debit cards feel more secure than credit cards against theft/fraud (and I'm not really sure if they are, I don't think so).

I'm intrigued. What bank does that?

It's called 3-D Secure. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecureCode)

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#104

Post by jiggy2011 »

SonicSoul wrote: post #102
jiggy2011 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends if we are talking about FB simply providing a service for taking payments similar to google checkout (using existing Cards) or whether you suggest that they try to replace card altogether. In order to do that FB would be looking at setting up massive infrastructure and essentially having a "banking division" that would get bogged down in regulations and bureaucracy.

my point is, credit cards suck, and there is plenty of space for alternatives. There is a race in peer to peer and micro-payment space, and currently paypal is the leader, but it is far from perfect. I'm not a big fan of FB, but i think this article is on point, and they are well suited to enter this space. Being able to validate identity (thanks to all the information), and having a brand and cash to back it up. As…

They would most likely still have to deal with the credit card cartel in one way or another. Simply putting a nice payment front end up doesn't make VISA suck any less.

Another advantage of credit cards is the credit part and it would seem a big stretch for FB to get into the lending game.

I think how well they can execute is only one part of the puzzle, since they are going to have to deal with the governments of multiple jurisdictions and big financial institutions and will basically be at their mercy.

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#105

Post by tatsuke95 »

batista wrote: post #57
crag wrote: post #12

I've been on FB since the beginning. And I've never clicked on an ad. What makes you think I will to actually buy something? I barely trust Paypal, you think I'm gonna trust FB with my CC details. You gotta be kidding. There are a few steps FB must do before I'll trust them with anything other than bs about what games I'm playing now: 1. Convince me they take my security and privacy seriously. 2. Convince me they are…

> I've been on FB since the beginning. And I've never clicked on an ad. What makes you think I will to actually buy something? FB has several billions of revenue from ads. What makes you think you are not an insignificant outlier and that this move or any other doesn't concern you? Just think people, if everybody did what I do on FB, would FB still exist? If the answer is no, then what you might or might not do, does…

Despite the fact that FB makes money off of ads, do you think people would prefer to have ads on Facebook, or to not have ads?

I think the answer is obvious: people prefer no ads. "Advertisement" is a dirty word. People want a free, ad-less product, despite the fact that it's economically unfeasible.

That's a problem. What happens when it becomes more widespread or easier to install things like adblock? What happens if a browser comes along that blocks Facebook cookies and ads by default, but still allows the basic functionality of FB? Don't say it can't happen. We're just getting to the point in society where having everything about us on someone's server is "normal". Wait until there's a disaster of some sort, a major security breach, and see how fast people change their habits. It can happen overnight.

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#106

Post by tatsuke95 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #94
crag wrote: post #12

I've been on FB since the beginning. And I've never clicked on an ad. What makes you think I will to actually buy something? I barely trust Paypal, you think I'm gonna trust FB with my CC details. You gotta be kidding. There are a few steps FB must do before I'll trust them with anything other than bs about what games I'm playing now: 1. Convince me they take my security and privacy seriously. 2. Convince me they are…

I've never clicked on a Facebook ad either, but I've run ads on Facebook and they got clicked a lot. The cost per new user was lower than Google Adwords. I'm not sure it's a good idea to dismiss Facebook's chances at making money from ads yet. I've never clicked on a TV ad either, but stations make hundreds of billions of dollars from those ads every year. That industry took many decades to grow to that point though.

It's not whether Facebook makes money off the ads. We know they do. It's whether the advertisers make money from the ads that will demonstrate if there is a sustainable business model there.

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#107

Post by sanswork »

pessimizer wrote: post #86
batista wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've been on FB since the beginning. And I've never clicked on an ad. What makes you think I will to actually buy something? FB has several billions of revenue from ads. What makes you think you are not an insignificant outlier and that this move or any other doesn't concern you? Just think people, if everybody did what I do on FB, would FB still exist? If the answer is no, then what you might or might not do, does…

Most people don't click on ads, but the minority that do can generate billions of dollars of revenue. The minority that do follow the ones that don't.

A recent report showed that the minority that click ads at facebook is pretty close to half. Not a bad minority to have using your site.

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#108

Post by philwelch »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #98

> Fraud. Paypal and others use complex algorithms, special teams and God knows what. But Facebook has an unique and unparalleled data base of a user’s history, friends, activities and what not. The author seems to confuse credit risk and fraud risk. Credit risk pertains to the probability of you being unable or unwilling to honour your commitments. Fraud, within this context, pertains to the unauthorised use of funds…

All told, it's probably more valuable and actionable information than Facebook will ever have about you. Oh look, you claim to "like" some restaurant that gave you a special deal for mashing the "like" button. Isn't that precious--meanwhile, you actually eat more often at this one just across the street.

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#109

Post by Zak »

omonra wrote: post #25
crag wrote: post #12

I've been on FB since the beginning. And I've never clicked on an ad. What makes you think I will to actually buy something? I barely trust Paypal, you think I'm gonna trust FB with my CC details. You gotta be kidding. There are a few steps FB must do before I'll trust them with anything other than bs about what games I'm playing now: 1. Convince me they take my security and privacy seriously. 2. Convince me they are…

You seem to conflate [1 - what I want FB to do with regards to privacy] with [2 - what FB needs to do so I trust they won't steal my money]. The two have nothing to do with each other. Realistically speaking, 1 may never happen, 2 is already there (even if you're only liable for $50 from unauthorized cc transactions).

What if what I spend my money on is private? I don't really want my spending habits to be social.

Re: Seriously? Ads?

#110

Post by startupfounder »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #98

> Fraud. Paypal and others use complex algorithms, special teams and God knows what. But Facebook has an unique and unparalleled data base of a user’s history, friends, activities and what not. The author seems to confuse credit risk and fraud risk. Credit risk pertains to the probability of you being unable or unwilling to honour your commitments. Fraud, within this context, pertains to the unauthorised use of funds…

"The Economist recently put the fraud loss rate at approximately 0.35% of transactions and up to 1.8% for online payments"

For the ~$2 trillion[1] going through online payments, bringing down the online fraud loss by every 0.1% is equal to $2B, if over time Facebook can reduce that online fraud rate by 0.5% or more there is your $10B.

Using your real identity to make online payments could reduce that to real world levels.

If this is the case then reducing the fraud rate from 1.8% to 0.35% in online payments (a reduction of 1.45%) would calculate to a savings of $29B for this industry.

Thus, if Facebook is able to be a major part of that reduction by using real identities then they will get much of this transaction business. If they are able to pull this off there is no stopping them...

Feel free to rip me apart, but there is some validity to may arguments :)

[1] http://www.edgardunn.com/uploads/100012_english/100385.pdf

Post reply on HN