Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough' • Hacker News Board

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#111

Post by usrusr » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 6:54 PM UTC

shoguning wrote: post #5

My interpretation of what's going on: CEOs finally have leverage against their marketing departments to do black-out testing on social media ad spend. It's difficult to actually measure impact of ad spending, and marketing teams spin results to their advantage. They will observe what happens and re-introduce spending where it actually works.

Yes, I think it's a fault line that has been waiting to crack for quite a while. Facebook has never been a good match for those big household-name brands because for them targeted ads add very little value over blanket ads. They begrudgingly pay a heavy premium on targeting only because some demographics have completely detached themselves from blanket ad media. That's not how a happy customer relationship looks like.

Marketing departments (or external intermediaries) don't mind the lower value proposition at all, because they get all those micromanagement opportunities and (perceived) necessities offered by self-serve targeting platforms. Huge opportunities to look important. I wonder how the management overhead per dollar spent on ads has developed in the last 20 years.

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#112

Post by msla » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

someluccc wrote: post #108

The cool thing about facebook’s highly targeted advertising is that it balances the ad market in favor of niche players vs. generalists, which also means they have a long long tail of millions of small buyers vs. a few huge ones who used to dominate traditional media. Old marketing was carpetbombing, which meant only those with B-52 sized budgets could dominate. It was also deeply entwined with centralized high-volum…

> Today’s marketing is precision bombing. You just need the right explosion in the right place. Likewise, the internet enables the economies of small manufacturers and small retailers (shopify/amz third-party).

It's direct mail and it's nothing new. It was annoying decades ago, it's even more annoying now, because it's better-targeted, to the point it's effectively surveillance. Carpet-bombing advertising is brand advertising: It's somewhat annoying, but it doesn't track you.

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#113

Post by sharkmerry » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 7:00 PM UTC

ankit219 wrote: post #59

Facebook has a long tail of 8 million advertisers (according to their earnings report).Some of the big ones leaving would mean that the relatively smaller ones would get better returns on spend (due to fewer bidders and lower top bid) and in turn spend more. This does help the brands get a bit of free PR at Facebook's expense, given that many of them would have been planning to reduce the spend anyway due to Covid.

By that same token, how big are the companies at the end of the tail? If large corporations are cutting marketing budgets, small shops on tighter budgets probably are as well

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#114

Post by mhoad » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

higglydiggly wrote: post #57

mhoad wrote: post #21

On a related note I just saw someone on Twitter mentioning this report that was just released that does a real deep dive into how the problems associated with hate speech have played out on the ground in India. [1] It's grim reading and I think it is a huge slap in the face to that ridiculous corporate propaganda piece they released the other day saying that they don't profit from hate speech. I'd encourage people to…

This is pretty explicitly the type of speech that doesn't need protection by 1A. The absolutism of it is really an ideal that practically achieved would lead to some ugliness. But I'm wondering how this extends to banning conservatives, conspiracy theory pages, or even jokes? When is it going too far over the line, which is drawn at different points for different people/groups? Because my fear is the government doesn…

I'd kind of make the argument that to me at least, it's not really a story about "finding the right balance" between free speech absolutism and a generally pleasant society.

To me that is a somewhat interesting conversation for sure, but the point here I think is that we have a huge number of cases where real live violence and harassment is occurring directly and indirectly as a result of Facebook's choice to NOT properly moderate content that we seem to both agree is most certainly not the kind of speech worth defending.

Facebook will say that there is no way that they could possibly do a sufficient job on this and will remind you that they are "always seeking to improve" but the reality of the matter is that they have made a decision for reasons that aren't actually clear as to why they decided to dedicate this specific amount of resources on the problem.

A lot of people in society think that they should be spending more on trying to fix that problem. I happen to be one of them and I think that is the conversation I am trying to have. What is a good way for society to provide their feedback on how tech has impacted their relationships? Seems to me that very few people actually like social media but many are addicted because these Facebook spent untold amounts of time and money finding new ways to optimize for "engagement" without ever really considering all of the shitty impacts on society that might have.

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#115

Post by wolco » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

paulgb wrote: post #80

the_unknown wrote: post #32

And yes, he's absolutely correct. Some advertisers such as the big Canadian banks aren't even hiding it now switching from announcing a boycott to a limited-time withdrawal: "Participating brands will suspend all advertising on the platform for the month of July." https://globalnews.ca/news/7129688/facebook-boycott-canada-b...

Nobody was ever hiding that the boycott is for July; the call for the boycott says so in the first line. Some companies decided to go for more than a month but that's their choice. > On June 17, Color Of Change along with the NAACP, ADL, Sleeping Giants, Free Press, and Common Sense Media called on Facebook’s advertisers to hit pause on ad spending for July 2020 > https://colorofchange.org/stop-hate-for-profit/

Is there a big list of all of the companies taking part?

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#116

Post by randompwd » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

goodrubyist wrote: post #17

Barrin92 wrote: post #7

Of course he's right. If anything I'm surprised advertisers aren't cutting back more given how much revenue they're probably losing during the pandemic. Real change has to come from two sources. Firstly regulation, Facebook will never "self-regulate" and this corporate activism is a joke. And secondly, from employees who in sufficient numbers have at least some leverage.

You do realize that regulating Facebook and other social media companies in order to force them to limit speech on their platforms would expressly violate the First Amendment? And, thank God for 1A, given the enormous amount of interest people have in limiting speech.

Remember how Facebook operates around the world. Not just USA.

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#117

Post by acallaghan » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #37

I hope he doesn’t cave in. All the companies who signed onto the campaign to stop advertising on Facebook are essentially against the fundamental principles freedom of speech and expression. I don’t plan to buy from them any longer, because they’re normalizing censorship.

> I don’t plan to buy from them any longer, because they’re normalizing censorship.

Go make a right-wing social media site, or join one that exists now. There's people threatening civil war if Trump isn't re-elected, without being challenged or 'censored'.

Freedom of speech is from the government, private companies have freedom to choose what they allow, given they also have free speech

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#118

Post by spicyramen » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 7:06 PM UTC

My take is that since many people increase their cellphone usage, some renown brands do not need advertising as they may already seen increase in online sales, hence could be a good reason to cut in ads and be politically correct

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#119

Post by cm2012 » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 7:06 PM UTC

MagnumPIG wrote: post #12

gruglife wrote: post #2

It’s so true. At the end of the day, users haven’t abandoned FB and that’s what advertisers care about.

Depends which users. A lot of teenagers are "mostly on Instagram" or "only use it for Messenger". And teenagers are apparently an important population to marketers. I know FB owns Instagram but the point is, Facebook as a platform may be past its prime in NA.

Facebook had more daily users in the US in Q2 than ever before. They've never had a quarterly decline.

Re: Zuckerberg: advertisers will be back to Facebook 'soon enough'

#120

Post by someluccc » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 7:11 PM UTC

msla wrote: post #112

someluccc wrote: post #108

The cool thing about facebook’s highly targeted advertising is that it balances the ad market in favor of niche players vs. generalists, which also means they have a long long tail of millions of small buyers vs. a few huge ones who used to dominate traditional media. Old marketing was carpetbombing, which meant only those with B-52 sized budgets could dominate. It was also deeply entwined with centralized high-volum…

> Today’s marketing is precision bombing. You just need the right explosion in the right place. Likewise, the internet enables the economies of small manufacturers and small retailers (shopify/amz third-party). It's direct mail and it's nothing new. It was annoying decades ago, it's even more annoying now, because it's better-targeted, to the point it's effectively surveillance. Carpet-bombing advertising is brand ad…

Direct mail is to FB ads what chariots are to a Ferrari. You can pay facebook to target any of 1.7 Billion people with 0 research on your end. You can automate a campaign for reach/effectiveness. Your budget can be whatever you want it to be. You can get instant feedback and adjust accordingly.

FB adds are expensive because people click on them. They click on them because they are useful. They are also minimally intrusive: just scroll past, no click to close, no have to watch, no site ruining banners.

I for one, actually like FB ads: they show things I may want or need, often with a discount or some other benefit.