91–100 of 250 posts
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd3gQAV1ncs
Run an experiment And let the truth fall out
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear this claim a lot, but it forgets that Facebook has 1.7 BILLION daily active users and still growing. They won't miss a few users here and there: users are the product, not the customer. 100 million people could leave Facebook and it would only slightly reduce the amount of ad impressions they can sell. On the other hand if advertisers boycott Facebook that directly hurts their bottom line.
400 advertisers, who are the largest brands, have already boycotted Facebook. And the stock is near all time high (it recovered the losses this week) and Zuckerberg is pretty much saying he won't change nothing. So there you have it. Very likely this will hurt advertisers more (since they now have lower ROI) vs. Facebook whose large base of performance driven and small advertisers (who don't have much brand to speak…
Were you going to ignore my point about Facebook being about to lose 100 million daily active users without even feeling it?
All I can do is imagine Jesse Eisenberg saying this. There are other channels you can push your spend through with decent ROI. Nobody's platform be it a personal blog or small app is without analytics anymore. Shorting Facebook: FB 210p 7/10
Is it really necessary to announce that you've taken a specific position. Should we all layout all of our related positions on every post about a company? This doesn't belong here.
Given how much hacker news has been gamed lately, this does belong here.
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.
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...
FB should offer a "limited-time" discount for advertisers, subsidized by rate hike when those boycotting return.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, if recruiters are tagging the least interested in tech in my contacts, then I know it's a ship going down. Acqui-hire is their only way to replenish the talent pool, now.
Are you saying fb is tagging non tech people for jobs?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are absolutely wrong on both counts. THe only real change will come from users. If Facebook users start boycotting (and to be clear no users are doing this), that is what will hurt them. So while you and I continue to be outraged, a lot of users don't care enough and just goto Facebook to see what their friends are doing and clicking on that ad. And the wheel keeps on turning around. Employee activism won't matte…
I hear this claim a lot, but it forgets that Facebook has 1.7 BILLION daily active users and still growing. They won't miss a few users here and there: users are the product, not the customer. 100 million people could leave Facebook and it would only slightly reduce the amount of ad impressions they can sell. On the other hand if advertisers boycott Facebook that directly hurts their bottom line.
Agreed that even 100 million isn’t enough, though it would be the start of a trend which could slowly pick up momentum.
I work in marketing. Advertising markets are pretty damned efficient. If a bunch of advertisers pull out, rates come down, new advertisers come in. There may be some affect, especially if big companies were spending inefficiently to build "awareness". But at the end of the day, the market rate for a click is the market rate. Someone will pay for it.
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.
2020 is very atypical and not a good time to run a "marketing off" test. Even if you did an A/B or multivariate test across different markets, you'd probably be measuring local responses to Covid more than you'd be measuring Facebook marketing effectiveness.