Facebook has signalled it will become more annoying, by letting The Wall Street Journal know video ads are coming to the social network quite soon now. The Journal's report says Facebook has been on the cusp of introducing video ads for months now, but has been held back by valiant champion-of-the-users Mark Zuckerberg's …
"Zuckerberg's insistence that they load in a flash and not annoy users"
I did a double-take when I first read this, since it parsed as "Zuckerberg's insistence that they load in Flash", which struck me as decidedly odd...
Two million a day is a bit above my current budget, alas - but hell, think of the opportunities if you were filthy rich! If you could show something to *everyone on Facebook* for a day for two million bucks, what would it be... and would Facebook let you... *daydreams*
The only flash Zuckerberg needs is a firework up his fundament!
only a flash..
A flash that is result of a 50 megaton nuclear explosion per chance? That should do it...
...to the rescue!
I don't use Facebook mobile any more as it is. Unless these video ads appear on Facebook chat, I'll never see them on mobile and I can curtail my use of Facebook on my computers in all but my business site. Posting and selling advertising is one thing. If Advertisers don't make sales from them, they'll stop buying those ads, won't they?
Just say no.
to target the ads so they just show the same ones to everyone?
Re: too lazy
It does seem a bit contrary to their normal focus but maybe it's a new area so they're starting as low-tech as possible?
Entirety of Fecebook usership could be a tempting target for advertisers.
But from the users' perspective, re: "Time will tell if this is viewed as intrusive or highly relevant and welcomed by Facebook users," (from the cited _WSJ_ article) -- sorry, if I'm trying to see my friend's Fecebook page, or check my own, or what-have-you, I can not imagine that adverts getting in the way would be something I'd "welcome". Especially if I'm on dialup or paying so much per unit of data.
"Some advertisers worry they will end up spending more money on creative development, on top of what they are spending on the ad placements" -- read as "We'll have to make adverts worth watching? We don't typically budget for that, and it'll eat into our profits."
Re: Entirety of Fecebook usership could be a tempting target for advertisers.
"Some advertisers worry they will end up spending more money on creative development, on top of what they are spending on the ad placements"
Judging by the low standard and sheer quantity of tv ads presently, the above seems to be a widespread worry among advertisers.
The lack of originality is abysmal, even among those with a creative budget -- all perfumes and men's toiletry product ads seem visually interchangeable, for example.
The benefits of ageing
" ..everyone on Facebook aged between 18 and 54."
I'm just outside the demographic - woohoo! Oh, ... I don't use Facebook .. I forgot about that.
Ner ner ne ner ner
I use a browser extension to avoid that horrible timeline, and I'm sure some enterprising script kiddy will devise a way to block them within a week anyway.
Re: Ner ner ne ner ner
While I agree with what you say, I feel the need to pull you up on your use of 'script kiddy'. Script kiddy is a derogatory term for someone who claims to be a cracker but does nothing more than run someone else's script/software.
I don't think it's fair to paint extension writers with the same brush, especially given their intent is positive (to benefit the people, usually for free) and at least some understanding of coding and willingness to learn would be required.
I wonder if this will be the golden-egg killing moment, or if everyone will suddenly become aged 55 overnight?
Not just the pre-teens...
...lying about their age then?! I'd suggest some could set their age to 13-18, but there's probably a reason or two why that might not be a good idea...
Set a friends list called 'All friends', put everyone in it and make that the default view. Also avoids static adverts and other auto-generated crap...
And this is what ad blocking software is for.
Not TOO bothered
If it's once a day I guess that's OK although it will presumably suck for anyone who blocks cookies? I have ad-blocker on my main PC but on the iPad the existing ads are only moderately irritating.
More worrying is the data usage for mobile users, surely.
Zuckerberg is remembering a little bit about why ad-blocking software came about. ie adverts were making noises.
He forgets the other reasons they started, adverts were moving, causing a distraction and that some are in line with the text you are trying to read.
Encroach in any of those three areas and people will block them.
Seriously, the ads I get from facepalm now gets blocked by adblock, noscript, and other applications. If failbook would just listen to the user base (there are ads I would like to see) and stop sending out the date-an-$random in your area crap.
- One HUNDRED FAMOUS LADIES exposed NUDE online
- Twitter: La la la, we have not heard of any NUDE JLaw, Upton SELFIES
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- Apple to devs: NO slurping users' HEALTH for sale to Dark Powers
- Rubbish WPS config sees WiFi router keys popped in seconds