Analyst house Forrester has unloaded on Facebook, accusing it of doing a terrible job for ad-slingers. Forrester veep and principal analyst Nate Elliot has penned a blog post, styled as an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg that opens with the blunt assertion “Facebook is failing marketers.” The letter goes on to back up that …
I can't see that cursor tracking is particulary interesting to advertisers - it doesn't mean you're *reading* or looking at the content under your mouse/cursor.
However, if you are building the largest multi-governmental spy grid that the planet has ever seen, then yes, I guess it would be very interesting indeed.
Re: Cursor tracking
We have ways to make you read! (Raises eyebrows Spock-like)
I looked at the blog post. The big item there is a bar chart of satisfaction scores (1 to 5) for 13 channels, based on a sample of 395 respondents. Facebook is at the bottom with 3.54. The top score is 3.84. Basically, all the channels surveyed are so-so and none stands out. Error margins are, unsurprisingly, not provided. Besides, no support is given to the assertion that FB is to blame rather than the marketeers who don't know how to deal with it.
Not to provide any endorsement or apology to FB, but in this case it sure looks like Mr. Analyst pulled his conclusions out of his ... erm... hat?
Facebook is riding a tidal wave that is about to peak.
Sane businessmen should know that advertising on Facebook is very unlikely to promote sales and yet they continue throwing good money after bad because somewhere they keep getting told that it is the place to be.
This bubble will burst, it is inevitable especially when business wakes up and realises that throwing ads at fake profiles and 9 year olds does not make them money.
Facebook is just a glorified Ponzi scheme.
Bask in the glory!
Unfortunately, a bit of your pension scheme money is most probably locked up in there.
"Sane businessmen should know that advertising on Facebook is very unlikely to promote sales and yet they continue throwing good money after bad because somewhere they keep getting told that it is the place to be."
Sane businessmen (and women) should take note of GM and Ford's departure from facebook advertising some time back.
I can still recall the look on the face of the local evening newspaper ad rep when I told her that her $2000 ad campaign running over 3 weeks was trumped by ONE $50 ad in the classified section of a "rival" (nearest big city) morning paper. in terms of results - and that they were both spectacularly trumped by $150 worth of radio advertising.
Facbook serves ads up to people who mostly don't want to see them or don't have any spending power. That's a recipe for ensuring that the reaction is mostly negative - especially when their "targetting" campaigns result in me seeing adverts for stuff I was even LESS interested in.
In the USA you can issue a "form 1500" to the local postmaster to prevent unaddressed mail being sent - they can no right to argue (although they will) nor do they have any right to dispute why you say you don't want (although they will try).
Never tuned in.
Kill the competition
So let's suppose that FB accept this guy's recommendations. That they do manage to harness all the lies, wishes, flights of fantasy and misconceptions that FB-ers put in their profiles (and possibly their posts, too). What then?
They become the most success advertising platform the world has ever seen. The accuracy of their targetting produces stupendous results and advertiers eschew all other media in favour of FB. So all the world's advertising money stops flowing to newspapers, TV and magazines and they all go out of business.
Net result: one advertising monster, serving trivia to the world and bugger all print media, serious reporting, analysis, whistle-blowing or reigning-in (though if it kills off the Daily Mail all that might be a price worth paying). However, most of the quality TV that we import (let's forget about ITV and other commercial UK TV as lost causes and not worth their bandwidth) into the UK would be gone,too.
So maybe FB already know how to leverage advertising. Maybe their analysts have performed an in-depth analysis of the consequences and decided that while they could do that, it wouldn't serve their purpose (as they'd also kill off most commercial websites and ad-dependent searches, thereby destroying the attraction of the internet which they rely on) and therefore they choose not to dominate - primarily for their own benefit.
Sometimes you have to let the goose have it's freedom to continue laying those golden eggs.
Halloween XIV: Revenge of Zuck
Oh, come on. It's not like FB would hoover up the whole industry and its dependencies like the Blob from Zuckerberg. It's just a search graph with Hadoop. You need a war or government for THAT.
Those who want the good stuff will find it and get it. Those who won't spend time on Facebook will spend it elsewhere. Life goes on etc.
Re: Kill the competition
What, you mean like Google?
Lying to the product (the "members") is fine and dandy. It's not only expected, but required so that too many of them don't catch on they're the product.
But get caught lying to the ones paying you money? Time for... a spanking!
I imagine the right products sell well to Facebook users
13 litre drums of generic cola, adult nappies, 8kg buckets of fried chicken, banoffee and chicken tikka pizza... that kind of thing.
“genuine engagement between companies and their customers.”
I can't believe he's so stupid to believe there's any of the "genuine engagement", ever. Or am I so naive and there are meeelions of customers "genuinely engaging" with companies? A chilling prospect :(