
Facebook bans Adsense in all applications, driving Google out of Facebook.com - ignifero
http://forum.developers.facebook.net/viewtopic.php?id=91182&p=2
======
swombat
Somehow people are surprised that Facebook (a company that makes most of its
revenues from advertising and is competing for "Top internet dog" spot) and
Google (a company that makes most of its revenues from advertising and is
competing for "Top internet dog" spot) are not in harmonious agreement when it
comes to having each other's ads on their properties.

Seems pretty predictable to me. Facebook will do whatever it needs to win the
battle. My commentary here: [http://swombat.com/2011/3/5/facebook-predictably-
bans-adsens...](http://swombat.com/2011/3/5/facebook-predictably-bans-adsense-
applications)

~~~
joelhaasnoot
If Facebook is "a company that makes most of its revenues from advertising",
and Google is stealing their revenue according to them, they need to work on
their Ad Platform. As a small startup, we did some ads on Facebook with
500,000 displays but only 13 or so clicks (but then again, the ads were cheap
to run). Nobody cares about Facebook ads and no one clicks on them, I know I
very rarely do.

~~~
socialmediaking
If you ran ads with 500,000 displays and only 13 or so clicks, you did
something horribly wrong. Facebook ads have a value because they can be ultra
targeted. There are many ways ways you could have made a mistake, for
instance, demographics that were too unspecific, bad images, not enough
variations (i use 10+ sometimes), bad copy, etc.

I like to look at the comparison of google ads vs facebook ads as such: If you
want to provide a service/product to people who are seeking that solution, use
Google ads. And if you want to go to the targeted demographic directly and
present your solution/product/message, use Facebook.

An example would be if you sold wedding services in miami. You could go on
facebook and target women 25-35 who are engaged and live in miami. The ads
would display only for the targeted demographic and would likely have a good
click-through rate. Or you could go into google adwords and buy terms related
to wedding services miami or zipcode+wedding service. The differences here are
that a woman in the younger demographic is much more likely to be spending
hours on facebook and only minutes on a google search.

In addition, google also has incredibly high competition for some of the more
lucrative keywords and it is getting increasingly more competitive in local
search, now requiring a top 7 ranking to really matter in the local listings.

Also, never underestimate the cpm (cost per thousand) displays of facebook ads
to the targeted demographic. They work great for events like concerts and
other events when simple awareness is key. A good image also helps a lot, as I
run ads with the same text and different images and see dramatic differences
in the number of clicks.

It's difficult for me to believe that "nobody cares about Facebook ads and no
one clicks on them" because Facebook Ads (and Google Adwords/Adsense) operate
as markets, with a bidding system on price. I almost don't want to post this
because the more people who know about and use facebook ads, the higher the
price rises. Their prices have been steadily rising over the last year as more
and more business try them out. They do work, but not for every product and
not for every demographic. But people wonder how facebook can have such a high
valuation, because they underestimate the amount of direct access and data
Facebook has to over 500 million people.

The ads do work, but to create a good campaign requires knowledge of the
platform, and experience in marketing, advertising, and copywriting. Laypeople
assume they don't need marketers and can do buys themselves, and more cheaply,
but usually end up spending more. The true gold in online advertising though,
comes from what happens after the person clicks.

~~~
joe_the_user
Hmm,

 _You could go on facebook and target women 25-35 who are engaged and live in
miami._ If Facebook's booster can't find a different glittering hypothetical,
they are going to be in trouble... What about "barbers in St. Louis"? Uh wait,
barbers in St. Louis actually need almost exactly what barbers in Houston
need. The virtue of online business isn't "targeting" but finding something
lots of people need.

 _Engaged?_ I think I remember friends talking what it's like having your
Facebook profile say "engaged". Boy, that's one status that every retailer
_thinks_ they can exploit.

 _It's difficult for me to believe that "nobody cares about Facebook ads and
no one clicks on them" because Facebook Ads (and Google Adwords/Adsense)
operate as markets, with a bidding system on price._

If your reasoning was correct, nothing sold at an auction would ever be a bad
deal.

But given that Facebook is _seen_ as the next platform, every minute one has
to presume that a new-customer appears to _try_ and take advantage of this
great platform. But frequency of these customers appearing doesn't prove that
they are getting a deal that works for them.

~~~
whatusername
Cleaning services in st louise don't want to target barbers in Houston. Not
everyone is selling a web app.

Agreed about "engaged" status though

~~~
joe_the_user
Yes, but a cleaning service in St Louis can't afford to only target barbers.

My point is that the number of business that actually engage in very-narrow-
targeting are small. And the target groups tend be overwhelmed by this token.
_What percentage of the population makes major purchases very specific to
their demographic_? Is it not high (weddings, college, funerals?
Anniversaries? You start to run out after a short time). The rich can also be
target and are targeted and you are again back in the "not-a-slam-dunk" range.

A San Francisco dominatrix still buys a car and a washing machine in the same
fashion as a mid-western minister.

If you look at the idea behind Facebook advertising, you'll see it's actually
the _old_ model of brand advertising - somehow injecting an _irrational_
connection between the customer and the product. It's just that brand
advertising rightly imagine they can get more traction if they know the exact
demographic someone is one. They might indeed do so but it's still in the same
realm. The goal is to sway someone's purchase decision when that someone is at
a store and has to decide ten different otherwise identical whats-its. The
smallest prejudice you can insert will be worth a lot to you here.

But the Google model is the opposite - informational advertising. The model of
offering an honest argument for a product that the person is actively seeking.

A Facebook ad is essentially about hijacking attention. Hoping you'll get some
free-floating interest from someone who isn't otherwise thinking about your
offer.

A web page gets you the chance to make your case to those who are interested
in your case. What _objectively_ makes your service better.

Does a cleaning service want barbers? It wants customer in the million-person
city of St. Louis but that's a big group. It mostly wants anyone who actually
needs a cleaning service. And then there are a lot of things to say but this
basic is pretty simple.

------
DuncanIdaho
The game is on! Please place your bets!

So now we see who is the real powerhouse and if the Facebook is the Google
killer hype lives up to its expectations.

I place my bet on Google, I also see in my crystal ball that Zuckenberg is
going to do something so stupid and greedy that he will shadow Rupert Murdoch.
And I also divine that this will happen in next 5 years. By 2016 you will see
headlines: Facebook is dead, Larry Page reads obituary. Stock options
worthless.

~~~
swombat
Hardly. Google can lose this battle without dying. Facebook can't.

Two determined opponents are about to do battle... both are composed of very
smart and motivated people. One side gets slaughtered if they lose, the other
side just has to walk back home and continue to enjoy their current lifestyle.
Are you sure you're betting on the right side?

~~~
raganwald
That's the old argument: Rabbits are faster than foxes because rabbits are
running for their lives, while foxes are only running for their dinner. For
the sake of an interesting discussion, I would like to point out a flaw in
applying this logic to FB vs. Google.

The dinner/life argument is true when we observe creatures that have co-
evolved over a long period of time to reach an equilibrium of sorts in an
ecological niche. Foxes catch some rabbits, but not enough to wipe them out,
and not so few that foxes starve.

However, along the way there may have been other predators that starved to
death because they couldn't catch any rabbits. And other prey animals that
couldn't run fast enough and were wiped out. If we travel to a new ecological
niche like a volcanic island that has risen from the sea, and there we observe
one fox chasing a rabbit, it isn't a safe bet that the rabbit will escape the
fox. We don't have evidence that foxes and rabbits are in equilibrium on that
island, with both species able to eat enough and live long enough to reliably
produce offspring.

Looking at Facebook and Google, we are not talking about the business
equivalent of evolutionary time, and we are not talking about whole classes of
businesses. Even though Facebook is running for its life, Google can easily
wipe them out, just as on our volcanic island, one fox might easily eat one or
for that matter all rabbits.

Footnote for the curious:
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ilha_da_Queim...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ilha_da_Queimada_Grande)

~~~
cellis
Facebook is more like a wolverine than a docile rabbit. Google is a bear; much
bigger and should be more capable, but the wolverine is 10x more violent and
will easily back it down in a fight over the salmon. The wolverine is quick,
fearless and single-minded ( "eat!" ) while the bear is large, slow, probably
well fed, and therefore isn't nearly as tenacious. With _that_ analogy, who
you should bet on is clear.

------
phoboslab
So, who has any experience with one of the allowed Ad Providers[1]? I visited
a couple of sites from that list, but most of them don't offer _any_
information of what their rates are, how you get paid (per impression vs. per
click) or what their ads look like (I don't want overly distracting, blinking
ad banners). That is, without signing up first.

Finding a good ad provider seems to be exceedingly difficult :/

[1] <http://developers.facebook.com/adproviders/>

~~~
encoderer
Interesting to me that none of the premier CPA networks made the list.

It's completely true that most of these networks run offers that are the 2nd
tier "enlargement" and "weight loss" fare -- that sort of thing is probably
75% of their available offers and 99% of their revenue. But a good pub on a
top CPA network can make a lot more money than a good pub using Adsense.

~~~
lftl
I'm interested in looking at some CPA networks for an upcoming project. Would
you mind listing who you consider the top CPA networks?

~~~
AlexC04
Adzoogle, Neverblue - but they'll deny your application if you don't have
serious publishing experience. I'm making an assumption that if you don't even
know their names you're not going to have enough experience to get approved.

Your best bet for finding someone who is big enough to have offers, but not so
that they turn people down. Try Commission Junction for a proper 'place CPA
banner Ad' type setup.

They'll (probably) have you.

Once you're reliably making a few hundred to a few thousand a month, then
you'll be able to waltz in to Adzoogle and any other affiliate network you
want. As it turns out though, a lot of the smaller 'niche markets' are as good
or better than the big guys.

Maybe sign up for offervault to get the names networks you want to apply to
based on the offers that they carry.

~~~
chopsueyar
Can you recommend any particular 'niches'? e-cigarettes?

~~~
AlexC04
I can't recommend niches for a number of reasons.

Firstly, I strongly believe that all of the niches you can find make money.
Seriously, you see the same ones on every affiliate site and if they didn't
work, they wouldn't keep putting them up there.

If you believe in e-cigarettes, if you believe that through whatever channels
you try for you can reach smokers who would like to try e-cigarettes, and you
believe you can get enough 'buyers' to make your spend profitable (eg: $20 on
ads and $30 in sales) ... then e-cigarettes are the niche for you.

Well, within reason - you've then got to turn your faith into facts via
testing.

Second, because I'm only in the very early stages of my affiliate marketing
'career' - I have a lot of background experience from working around brilliant
world-class affiliate marketers, but the devil is in the details. I'm not yet
confident that I know the niches to move into if I gave you advice I could be
steering you down the wrong path (every niche makes money, just got to figure
out how).

Your best bet to have real experts teaching you the answers on where & how to
get started is probably something like warrior forums.

Also, check out Mike Colella on mixergy <http://mixergy.com/mike-colella-
adbeat-interview>

------
spyrosk
I wonder what would happen if google dropped facebook from their search
results in retaliation. At least for tech-savvy users it won't pose a problem,
but for the rest it will cause major problems (e.g. the RWW article). Will it
be legal though?

~~~
swombat
Google can't do that. They'd get sued under anti-trust laws for serious money.

Edit: Seriously. Tweaking your search algorithms to the detriment of some
providers and to the benefit of others is one thing (that Google does now, and
which they won't be sued for). Deliberately removing a direct competitor with
as high a profile (and deep pockets) as Facebook is a different kettle of
fish.

Google owns 84% of the search market _globally_
([http://marketshare.hitslink.com/search-engine-market-
share.a...](http://marketshare.hitslink.com/search-engine-market-
share.aspx?qprid=4)). That is considered a monopoly as far as Anti-Trust laws
are concerned.

~~~
gnaritas
A company the size of Google isn't afraid of a lawsuit, nor has it been
established that the _search market_ is something those laws apply to; Google
has plenty of room to do whatever they want with their search results
including banning Facebook. They can say the same thing Facebook did, they're
our competitors and they're stealing our customers.

~~~
jbrechtel
I'd argue that Google would be terribly afraid of a lawsuit that might
establish that the search market is something those laws apply to.

------
ohashi
I see an arbitrage opportunity! Create ad company, get into facebook list,
backfill with Google ads.

------
foobarbazetc
All Google have to do is agree to these terms:

<http://developers.facebook.com/ad_provider_terms/>

Should be a piece of cake. :)

~~~
ignifero
quote: "... upon request, the Advertising Provider agrees to provide Facebook
the names of and contact information for any employees and/or contractors "

may not be so easy

~~~
joelhaasnoot
Facebook and Google just need to talk. Might be a holler over the fence, but
their rift is spreading far and wide. Yes, they are both growing powers on the
internet, but for the sake of users and developers alike they need to settle
some of their differences. I wouldn't be surprised if this 'contract' move was
partly inspired to be able to block Adsense. If so, this is one of the oldest
tricks in the book: forcing everyone to agree to something Google can't. Or it
was the legal department going overboard.

~~~
rbarooah
I don't think it would be good for developers for Google and Facebook to
settle their differences. The last thing we need is the internet in the hands
of a giant cartel.

------
eddieplan9
I know i might get downvoted. But, how is this different from places that show
a sign saying "no outside drinks or food"? It's not like fb has a monopoly
advantage in anything. On the other hand, google has a near monopoly in online
ads. This might be a good thing for smaller ads companies.

~~~
bmelton
Eh, the sign isn't "no outside drinks or food" -- it's basically "all outside
drinks and food welcomed, except Coke. We friggin hate Coke."

~~~
jrockway
And would you really be surprised to see a sign like that in Pepsi's
cafeteria?

------
suitcase
I think this is pretty bad form on both sides.

On Facebook's part, they shouldn't be using a "certification process" to try
and exclude competitors from making money from their app ecosystem. From what
I can tell, the developers trying to make a living creating apps and even the
Facebook platform itself can ill afford this sort of disruption right now.
This sort of action will hurt the developers who invested in your platform the
most.

On the Google side, they should be thinking about how to structure some sort
of revshare agreement to help app developers get back to using Adsense and
getting on the list of networks blessed for Connect sites.

Concerning arbitrary and unexplained actions, participating in Adsense alone
will get you subject to more than a few of them. Consider what will happen to
you as a publisher if you share your eCPM or a screenshot of your Adsense
account.

And the same thing with advertisers when they have their creatives pulled for
no apparent reason.

In other words, both sides use bully tactics when it suits them, and in this
case, a peace treaty would probably be more mutually profitable than a
prolonged slugfest.

But it's not like corporate egos haven't fueled destructive behavior before...

------
thefreshteapot
With the google app store coming into effect with html5 games(and apps), those
game creators on fb maybe lured or tempted into trying their games in a new
segment. I for one use facebook less and less. Purely as a place to go when I
want to communicate with a friend who likes fbmail over email.

------
DanielBMarkham
Warning: rant ahead (pet topic)

When HTML came out, it was purely academic. People said sure, it's cool, but
how could you ever make money from just text with pictures and little links?

Now we have the answer: you create content -- text, video, pictures, games,
etc -- that actively interacts with the user. Then, if you're smart, you make
it so they have to "visit" your site to see this content, and, once there,
they can only see whatever you choose. It's called a walled garden. All is
beauty and loveliness. As long as you stay within the walls and don't piss off
the gardener.

But this idea of "visiting" a site is only there because people type some text
into a navigation bar and the browser loads material from a certain server.
There's no reason or law that says I have to type in an address -- or that
once I type in an address I am limited to seeing things from one server only.
There's not even a reason I should see the information in some certain format
or another. Why not type in "weather" and see various weather forecasts put
out by various sources? After all, I want weather, not Joe's weather or Amit's
weather. With all due respect to Joe and Amit, weather is weather.

Google is already doing this, of course, but only as a gateway. And they've
got their own walled garden they're working on. Play by the rules and you'll
appear on Google -- exactly where we want and alongside ads we feel are
relevant to your page (and ads we make money from)

But what if you took the "location" idea completely away from HTML? Then you
wouldn't be "visiting" anybody's site, and there wouldn't be any gardens to
build. What if you simply interacted semantically with your computer and it
gathered information from various sources and condensed it into plain text for
you to consume? Gone would be "site stickiness", "addictive gaming", and
"landing pages" and all sorts of other nonsense that's grown up around the
idea of internet locations.

You could still consume multimedia and interactive material, of course, but
only under terms you set, not terms the various site owners set. Perhaps you
would want no ads, or no hyperlinks, or a time limit each day that would be
acceptable for you to play games.

This puts the user back in control of their internet activities, the way it
should be. It destroys many business models, but the internet is data-based,
and it must evolve. I do not want the same internet in 2050 as we have now. It
also gets back to the true meaning of HTML -- separating the data from the
presentation. The designers of HTML realized that the purpose was structuring
the data so that it relevantly linked, not creating a walled amusement park in
the form of Facebook.

The curating and presentation of data is inherently a personal matter and best
not left to others. We either fix this problem or it will continue to get
worse, as recent events keep showing.

~~~
rudiger
I read over this twice and couldn't understand what is being said. Can someone
explain what is being said here?

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Facebook screws over developers because they can. Expect more of it. From lots
of other vendors.

The reason they screw developers and consumers over is because of the way we
access the internet, using a browser, an URL, and a single-site "visit"
metaphor. We are programmers, though. We are free to redefine how we access
the internet any time we like. We have created our own prison.

We can do better than this.

~~~
rbarooah
I agree with you that this doesn't seem to be leading us towards a great
utopia.

The problem isn't just programmers creating their own prison though - it's
about business models. How do we create this seamless brand-free info sphere
and still get paid?

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I agree it is a tough question.

But it is a different question than "how did we get here?" which is the
question I answered.

If we don't know how we got here, or what the nature of the problem is, how
can we ever expect to solve it?

~~~
rbarooah
History is a slippery beast. We only understand the past in terms of what we
know in the present. To change the future, we have to build it now. If we
spend our time trying understand the past before we act, time will have moved
on without us.

------
plusbryan
This will not end well.

------
ryanelkins
Google also recently removed Facebook contacts from Android with the
Gingerbread 2.3.3 update. Facebook had an exemption up to that point where
they played by different rules with regards to how/where contacts are stored
when syncing contacts using the Facebook app. It will be interesting to see
how this back and forth goes.

------
moblivu
It's simple all the money passes through Google; they don't have any control.
Now they want to see or even collect some of that money; they want control.

Result, an army of angry developers, Google loses a lot of clients, a war has
begun between two of the biggest web companies.

------
csomar
Any official announcement? I feel that Google don't like that their ads are
displayed the way most of the Facebook app developers do (with many other ads,
driving people to click and very low CPC).

------
ScottWhigham
Wait - I must be the only one who doesn't "get it": what does AdSense have to
do with Facebook? Can someone explain how AdSense and Facebook advertising
worked before The List?

~~~
swombat
You could have AdSense ads in your Facebook apps. Now you can't.

------
rbanffy
Any good experiences with the providers listed?

<http://developers.facebook.com/adproviders/>

------
EGreg
The real question is, does this include websites that simply USE facebook
APIs?

If so, it would be extremely uncompetitive :)

~~~
patja
No it doesn't include them. It only applies to apps on Facebook.com. Also
known as canvas apps or iframe apps. Connect apps also known as Facebook for
Websites are still free to use AdSense...which is why I converted my app to be
a Facebook for Websites app this week.

------
entrepreneurial
If facebook is going to ban google, it should provide its own revenue
possibility for its app dev's.

------
ddbbcc
It is facebook. What would you expect? It is the same thing if Google didn't
allowed facebook in their search results. Both "own" a monopoly and shouldn't
be allowed to do such things.

~~~
recoiledsnake
It's not the same. Facebook is a social networking site. Google advertises to
be a single stop indexer of all web sites.

------
originalgeek
Poor Google, using up their favors at the DOJ to go after MPEG-LA, when this
is a more direct threat to their business, and also more likely to bear fruit
in an antitrust probe.

------
theturtle32
You guys realize the linked forum thread is from all the way back in 2008? :-)

~~~
SoftwareMaven
The "drop dead" date for prohibiting AdSense was not in 2008, it was on
2/28/2011.

------
mkramlich
Facebook lets you use the fruit of their labor for free. Then they do
something to encourage revenue growth. But you're free to opt out (you don't
have to make a Facebook app, or page, or place ads there, etc.) One may not
like it but it's well within their rights to do it. Beggars can't be choosers.
And vote with your feet. (And believe me I've hated some of Apple's walled
garden decisions too, and yes I'm already voting with my feet there: more
webapp-centric and, to lesser extent, Android.)

------
Slimy
More information: [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-lists-
official-a...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-lists-official-ad-
providers-google-microsoft-missing/420)

------
TallGuyShort
There goes the business plan for the 4 "businesses" so far this year that have
asked me to build their website that's going to compete with Facebook. That's
a shame. They all seemed so talented. </sarcasm>

