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

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

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 250 posts

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

#241

Post by sfpoet »

legitster wrote: post #187
sfpoet wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were true, then why aren't frequencies capped for most campaigns run on-line?

I don't think I understand this question. Why doesn't Facebook limit the number of impressions? I assume the premise is that fewer ads will be worth more? Again, the ad market is insanely efficient and competitive. Restricted supply doesn't correlate with increased prices. If 1000 impressions is worth $20 to me, and it costs $30 on Facebook, I can take my money elsewhere. I don't even need to push a button, I have so…

Let me explain it another way.

As a user, I often see the same ad 100s of times. Yes, 100s.

On most ad software, you can set it so that the user sees it maybe 3 times.

The fact that I see an ad 100s of times means that the ad market is inefficient. Maybe the competition for that ad space is efficient, but from a user POV, advertisers are wasting time and space.

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

#242

Post by politician »

mmm_grayons wrote: post #45
politician wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, with stay-at-home orders media consumption is at an all-time high. Ads should outperform in this environment.

This assumes your conversion rate from media is the same. It's reasonable to hypothesize that most are significantly more reluctant to spend money in this environment.

Agreed; it depends on the product.

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

#243

Post by crakhamster01 »

pikelet wrote: post #179
asdff wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another example: Allbirds. $90 for a shoe with the build quality of something $25 from the Target store brand, but since it has hip, minimalist adverts on instagram it's seen as a great product and very popular.

I've never tried them, but isn't the selling point that they use natural materials rather than cheap synthetics like something for $25 from Target?

Yea the main selling point of Allbirds is their sustainable approach to manufacturing shoes. I've never owned a pair, but from my friends that do have them, they often describe them as "like if your shoes were socks" - which I think is intentional. Maybe OP went in with the wrong expectations?

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

#244

Post by jquery »

maps7 wrote: post #73
shripadk wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In some ways they have though, at least in terms of time allocation. When Facebook was in its heyday it was the default social network. They dont seem to be adding as many new users and I suspect they are churning old users. They also have to compete with wechat, twitter, tiktok, reddit, twitch, etc so its not obvious to anyone but facebook how loyal the userbase is. But it has nothing to do with loyalty. It has al…

Personal opinion but TikTok's is great. I got sucked in in less than 1 min. I actually think the rest suck, including FB. Reddit has no AI. Netflix's recommendation engine is usually spot on for me but I guess that is less difficult.

TikTok somehow convinced a bunch of young girls to dance in scanty clothes for the enjoyment of the internet for likes and comments. It’s not as bad as it used to be but knowing how they got started, as a de facto child porn production and distribution outlet (imagine if /r/jailbait was a default subreddit when Reddit launched), it’s hard for me to get over that and use TikTok.

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

#245

Post by jquery »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #128
CogentHedgehog wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but you forget that TikTok is effectively spyware for the Chinese government packaged to look like a social media app.

I don't think anyone here forgot it. The average user, however, even if informed, likely will not care. I tried to convey all the issues surrounding FB to my SO, which produced generalized shrug. I think a more drastic message is needed. Maybe some more distributed version of fappening that affects nearly everyone. That could get some attention. Could.

Remind them it got started as the reddit.com/r/jailbait for video and see what their reaction is.

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

#246

Post by IndexPointer »

My conspiracy theory mind tells me this is just brands doing a show of power to end up paying less for ads. Plus scoring a PR win. The bad part is that it encourages Facebook and others to do more aggressive automatic moderation, which has low precision and deletes accounts of people merely mentioning sensitive topics.

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

#247

Post by maps7 »

jquery wrote: post #244
maps7 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personal opinion but TikTok's is great. I got sucked in in less than 1 min. I actually think the rest suck, including FB. Reddit has no AI. Netflix's recommendation engine is usually spot on for me but I guess that is less difficult.

TikTok somehow convinced a bunch of young girls to dance in scanty clothes for the enjoyment of the internet for likes and comments. It’s not as bad as it used to be but knowing how they got started, as a de facto child porn production and distribution outlet (imagine if /r/jailbait was a default subreddit when Reddit launched), it’s hard for me to get over that and use TikTok.

When I open TikTok, that is not what I see at all. It's funny videos, sketches, memes that are all pretty relevant to where I live and around current affairs.

That said I don't use TikTok (or Instagram, FB etc) so maybe it's more like you're saying.

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

#248

Post by suizi »

pwdisswordfish2 wrote: post #232
catacombs wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would happen if advertisers pulled out and Facebook fell on hard times? This is very unlikely, as Facebook has more money than it knows what to do with and will easily weather this storm. Don't get me wrong, I'm the last person to defend the company, but this is the reality: Companies who say they are boycotting Facebook are only doing it as a PR stunt. Give a few months, and you'll see their ads back on your…

What I meant was not this particular instance but the future. Long term not short term. Is Facebook immortal? Companies, even the biggest ones, usually have a shelf life.

Facebook buys out their competitors.

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

#249

Post by legitster »

sfpoet wrote: post #241
legitster wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I understand this question. Why doesn't Facebook limit the number of impressions? I assume the premise is that fewer ads will be worth more? Again, the ad market is insanely efficient and competitive. Restricted supply doesn't correlate with increased prices. If 1000 impressions is worth $20 to me, and it costs $30 on Facebook, I can take my money elsewhere. I don't even need to push a button, I have so…

Let me explain it another way. As a user, I often see the same ad 100s of times. Yes, 100s. On most ad software, you can set it so that the user sees it maybe 3 times. The fact that I see an ad 100s of times means that the ad market is inefficient. Maybe the competition for that ad space is efficient, but from a user POV, advertisers are wasting time and space.

Replying a bit late:

This is the difference between "Reach" (number of people who see the ad) and "Impressions" (number of times an ad was shown). Advertisers have the ability to optimize for either (or neither if they optimize for something else).

Usually this is based on some internal metrics they have, like a report that correlates the number of impressions it takes someone to convert. Nobody will buy a product based on a single impression, so some amount of repetition is required. There are also industries with really long sales cycles where consumers may only make buying decisions once a year or less, so if you buy ads, you need to do it over a long period of time.

That's not to say every advertiser is doing things logically or efficiently. There are a lot of dumb strategies. Just like the stock market, it's full of really dumb decisions, and it only seems sensible when you stand back and look at it as a whole.

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

#250

Post by sfpoet »

anm89 wrote: post #181
sfpoet wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm putting my money where my mouth is. No, not necessary; contingent. No, we shouldn't all lay out positions. Given how much hacker news has been gamed lately, this does belong here.

So then say your short. Why do I need know at what strike price you bought at? This isn't wall street bets.

"So then say you're short. Why do I need to know at what strike price you bought at? This isn't r/WallStreetBets."

I guess asshole that can't spell runs strong in Colorado.

Post reply on HN