I have deliberately held off talking about the new social ads introduced on Facebook until I had received one. So far all I have seen is an ad for “Blockbuster by Mail” in my news feed. Maybe my friends don’t make purchases from Facebook partner sites or perhaps Henry Blodget is correct when he claims, “Facebook’s ’social ads’ so far appear to be a flop.”
Launched on November 6, the much-anticipated advertising program called Facebook Ads consists of three components: branded pages, targeted advertisements, and “Beacon,” which posts information about the activity of users on partner sites (such as movie rentals, or purchases from online retailers) onto the news feeds of their friends. The first two components are pretty innocuous but the third is creating some controversy.
Branded pages are nothing new, but advertisers can now create custom pages specific to their brand using all the applications written for Facebook, of which there are a bewildering number. Targeted advertising is not new either, although the plethora of information that users provide does enhance the ability to target people at a more granular level.
Neither of these aspects of the program should cause users much grief. With the first, it is under your control whether you become friends with a brand or not. With the second, I for one would welcome ads which are better targeted to my needs and interests. Right now I have no interest in “Stub Hub, where NFL fans buy and sell NBA tickets” or “Click and Create a Zwinky.” Come on, advertisers, send me something interesting about skiing, photography or cooking.
Beacon, on the other hand, is new, and as a Facebook user, I am not sure I like the sound of it. Essentially, the application pops up a window when you make a purchase on a Facebook partner site, which asks if you want to tell your friends about your purchase. It is an interesting idea but fraught with problems, not least that MoveOn.org has got Beacon firmly in its sights because the program is not 100% opt-out and is a “glaring violation of privacy.” Currently you have to opt out each time you make a purchase; you cannot simply opt in or out permanently with one action. I find it amusing that MoveOn.org has used Facebook to set up a group complaining about Facebook’s social ads.
Henry Blodget states, “We already hate the idea of bombarding friends with lists of the crap we buy. The fact that Facebook will only let us opt out of that bombardment on a case-by-case basis (at the virtual cash register at third-party sites) is infuriating.” And I have to agree. Do Manuel, Andrea, and Sandeep really want to know that I have bought a red iPod Nano? And besides, I don’t want the recipient, another friend on Facebook, to know what present she is getting for Christmas.
Because there is no such thing as a free lunch, some form of advertising on social networks is inevitable. The New York Times reports that “Ad spending on Web sites like Bebo, Buzznet, Facebook and MySpace — by companies like Blockbuster, Circuit City, Coca-Cola, Microsoft and Sony — is expected to total $1.2 billion this year, according to eMarketer, a research company, and climb to $1.9 billion in 2008.” Beacon is an interesting attempt to cash in on the millions of people using Facebook today but by making the application opt-out rather than opt-in I think they have gone too far.
I may, however, be in the minority. I asked my friends on Facebook the following question:
Facebook has now launched Social Ads—small, banner-like ads tied to Facebook users’ activities and placed on their profile page mini-feeds and the news feeds of friends on Facebook. Is this OK or an intrusion?
The few that replied tended to think it was OK, commenting as follows:
- OK - I hardly expect privacy on Facebook!
- This is OK as long as Facebook is a free service and they are well-targeted ads. Also, they should be limited in number and easy to close/delete.
- I guess it’s ok as long as the user retains control. Pretty much anything one posts here is public anyhow, right? I guess it’s getting more and more social.
Only one person said that it was an intrusion. But from what I have read the Beacon application fails to meet some of the requirements mentioned by people who think these ads are OK. It is not necessarily well-targeted, and control is not as easy as it should be.
So what do you think of the new Facebook Ads? Is it a model you think will work well for advertisers? And how would you feel as a Facebook user? Please let us know.
(20 votes, average: 3.65 out of 5)
Loading ...
November 21st, 2007 at 6:06 pm
I can’t say I’ve tried it myself, but I was under the understanding that opt-out didn’t just work on a case-by-case basis, but was also available on a per-site basis. Still, this doesn’t provide a complete one-point opt-out option, but may be better than what your post is suggesting. Of course, there are techy ways to opt out altogether (e.g. see http://www.ideashower.com/blog/block-facebook-beacon/), but I guess this wouldn’t meet anyone’s idea of opt-out.
November 21st, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Hi Mario, sounds like I better investigate further, but even so, I do note that Nate says, “Unfortunately, it’s being done in a ‘you can opt-out’ manner, when it should be ‘you can opt-in.’ An opinion I agree with. Consumers are meant to be in control these days, aren’t they? Cheers, Nigel
November 23rd, 2007 at 3:21 am
All of this points towards brands and agencies still grappling with how to effectively use Web 2.0.
In this instance if the users of Facebook were ‘ authorities ‘ in certain fields ( music, photography ) then knowing what these experts were purchasing in their ‘ expert field ‘ would give the system some credibility, rather as Henry puts it ‘ bombarding them with crap ‘ .
You also make reference to custom pages, one company seems to have resisted the temptation.
Primark has decided to not create it’s own dedicated space within Facebook – the reason, it’s own customers ‘ unofficial ‘ group of over 94,000 users is of far more value than “ anything they could themselves create.”
Primemark recognises that social networks are about the people who reside there, this is a great example of how it is using it’s customers brand loyalty to good effect – giving up an element of control it recognises this loss gives an honest and genuine platform for engaging conversations to grow and take place.
November 23rd, 2007 at 9:26 am
Great example, Trevor, I agree 100% that Primemark have the right idea. Interesting point about ‘authorities.’ I can see that working if I get to designate who I consider to be an authority on a particular topic. I am not sure I want to hear from self-proclaimed authorities.
November 28th, 2007 at 3:09 am
Facebook core audience is still the school and college going crowd. They really don’t care whether Facebook makes money or not but they come to it as its cool and it resonates with them.
Moment the core audience feel facebook is no longer cool, it would lose the reason to be. It does need to make sure that it understands what its core target would dislike and also have activities which tie in with the Web 2.0 environment.
Opt-in not a necessity, it’s a MUST.
Nigel, we would surely like to know the books that you buy and read.
Cheers
November 28th, 2007 at 3:48 am
Hi Sandeep,
So while you think the college crowd don’t really care you do agree that they would want to choose whether they take part in Beacon or not?
Maybe I will add the book app on Facebook but for now just assume that my selection will be heavily biased to hard-sf. Right now I am re-reading “Spin Control” by Chris Moriarty. It’s well worth a read, touching on a number of interesting questions about humanity’s future without wallowing in them to the expense of the story.
Nigel
November 29th, 2007 at 3:21 am
Business week is reporting a change to the Beacon program (click here for the article).
November 29th, 2007 at 3:31 am
Hi Trevor, thanks for this. Looks like Facebook are reacting quickly to remedy the situation. Maybe users rule after all! Cheers, Nigel
November 30th, 2007 at 3:51 am
Well it looks like Facebook are only backing off so far. They intend to make the opt-out box more visible by making it larger and having it remain on screen longer. They are not providing a universal opt-out according to the NYT.
I suspect that they are hoping that people will get used to it as they did when people complained about the News Feed. I see a big difference, however, between letting people know what their friends are doing on Facebook and what they are doing elsewhere online.
December 28th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Just to close the story on this one, here is a link to a story on TechCrunch detailing Zuckerberg’s apology for implementing Beacon. The comments are well worth a look.
June 11th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
[…] In the interview in the Frankfurter Allgemeine, conducted by Holger Schmidt (presumably no relation), the Google CEO stated, "The web 2.0 architecture is not necessarily a revenue opportunity. This is not where the money is." While this may not be music to the ears of Mark Zuckerburg and other Web 2.0 entrepreneurs, I personally think Schmidt is entirely right, especially when it comes to traditional display advertising, or, for that matter, applications like Facebook’s Beacon. (See my previous post here.) […]