Absolutely no scruples to be found at FB. I’d never take a check from them.
Facebook knew for years ad reach estimates were based on ‘wrong data’
31–38 of 38 posts
Re: Facebook knew for years ad reach estimates were based on ‘wrong data’
#32Facebook ads are scam.
FB Ads don't reach anyone.
Re: Facebook knew for years ad reach estimates were based on ‘wrong data’
#33It is difficult to get Mark Zuckerberg to understand something is wrong if it is making him the right amount of money.
I'm speculating here but Facebook strikes me as being different than most companies: given an equally viable choice between an ethical and an unethical solution to a problem, Facebook seems to prefer to choose the latter. I think it makes the execs feel ruthless and clever.
Re: Facebook knew for years ad reach estimates were based on ‘wrong data’
#34Facebook did something shady? I know most of the stuff coming out these days is in the past, but I really hope they are turning the corner and starting to act like they poses a spine and want anything but more dollars. Otherwise I see a dark future and a lot of litigation in their future.
Well, there's something going on in Australia currently.
I don't think they turned a page yet.
Re: Facebook knew for years ad reach estimates were based on ‘wrong data’
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please share if you have!
Here is one from originally 2016 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3033144 Apparently - I did a quick search - conversion rate at facebook is said to be on average up to 9% (in marketing materials) or around 4-5%. In this study, the authors show conversion rate consistently sub 1%, which is however not the point of the article. Rather, they also show that the lift in conversion (so the actual impact…
[deleted]
Re: Facebook knew for years ad reach estimates were based on ‘wrong data’
#36Same shit that caused "pivot to video" and killed so many things. https://twitter.com/adamconover/status/1183209875859333120
It's infuriating how Facebook faced basically no actual consequences for that. Their lies decimated entire industries. I had many writer friends who lost their jobs and were in extremely desperate situations because their employers were convinced to pivot to video based on those lies.
I wasn't in the drivers seat, but I don't understand how CH could have continued with native video on FB if they had the numbers that actually mattered, ad revenue from their own site. Like even if their engagement was through the roof, it should have been clear their ad revenue was tanking, so why didn't they revert?
Re: Facebook knew for years ad reach estimates were based on ‘wrong data’
#37Facebook is not an advertising company. They're a parasitic revenue laundering company. They feed off the cashflow of soon-to-be-bankrupt startups as part of giant global VC-fueled pyramid money laundering scheme. Founders get paid to take huge loans on their startup's books and run their startups straight into the ground while laundering all their capital to beef up Facebook's revenue for the benefit of big VCs and…
One day, books will be written about the predatory and degrading tactics used by Silicon Valley companies of all types. It is ironic that in an area of the country that prides itself on its own "progressiveness", people are more than happy to grind employees of speculative startup companies into the ground in a effort to raze the competition with free products, while living off endless VC investments. Google, as it e…
This process actually does deserve a well-researched book.
Re: Facebook knew for years ad reach estimates were based on ‘wrong data’
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's infuriating how Facebook faced basically no actual consequences for that. Their lies decimated entire industries. I had many writer friends who lost their jobs and were in extremely desperate situations because their employers were convinced to pivot to video based on those lies.
I wasn't in the drivers seat, but I don't understand how CH could have continued with native video on FB if they had the numbers that actually mattered, ad revenue from their own site. Like even if their engagement was through the roof, it should have been clear their ad revenue was tanking, so why didn't they revert?
sunk cost fallacy maybe? Maybe they didn't really have the numbers either or didn't trust their own (real) numbers. Or their total revenue was up and they didn't quite get the causalities right... Anyway, it happened.