
We stopped advertising on Facebook - vpj
http://vpj.svbtle.com/we-stopped-advertising-on-facebook
======
netcan
I think Facebook is making mistakes.

Adwords grew explosively, but relative to the expectations of Facebook, Google
looks patient. Adwords didn't start off with ten million customers with
endless budgets. They started off letting people buy $20 worth of ads at
5¢-50¢ per click. Some people figured out ways of selling ebooks or whatnot at
a profit and figured out things like split testing, conversion tracking and
such. They were then qualified to be consultants and go door to door to
electricians or removalists who got a good ROI and eventually allowed the
consultants to spend an extra $350 per month. Then they hired an in house 'PPC
Specialist' who spend their week figuring out new ways to profitably send
Google more money. A lot of the campaigns set up 5 years ago are still active.
I worked as a consultant back in 2007 and most of the campaigns I set up are
still running.

It took some time to figure out that Adwords works for dentists but not for
burgers or detergents. That wasn't immediately obvious. Burgers and detergents
were the big spenders of the advertising world and a platform that didn't work
for them was a toy.

There were a lot of ultimately stupid campaigns started. Half the initial
customers tried to get a better CPM (cost per 1000 impressions) by optimizing
for a low click through rate, benefiting no one. Google killed this off by
creating adrank. The other stupid advertisers were eventually outcompeted by
those who could turn their click into revenue more efficiently.

My point here is that Google put a tool out there. It took time before users
(advertisers) were good enough at using it to put pressure on the bids and
bring up prices. Someone figured out how to sell car insurance. Comparison
sites were created. They signed deals with insurance companies. Ecosystems
developed.

Facebook ads aren't useless. They just work for some stuff. The advertisers
just need time to figure out what works. If you are having a town fete and
want parents with small children to know you have a petting zoo, Facebook ads
_will_ get you customers physically driving to you for cents. Incredible
value.

Facebook is just impatient. They keep moving the posts in an attempt to find a
formula rather than making good tools, leaving them out there and letting
advertisers find the formulas.

~~~
notastartup
Overall, it's a sinking ship. People don't go checking out someone's profile
looking to buy car insurance, people don't check the news status looking to
read more about plumbing in the local hood. Hardly on Google's level imho.
Facebook is used like a yearbook you check everyday but only a couple of pages
in your interest. Unless they start watermarking profiles with ads it's hardly
going to even get most people's attention even if it was plastered all over
the page.

It's only a matter of time before they realize they can't beat google and the
sad reality hits, they can't monetize. There's no way to monetize hundred
millions of people around the world who don't have wallet or credit card.
Likes is a good example of this. Even if people who use facebook have a credit
card they are probably not in the buying mood. Friend tells me a product is
good, one still uses Google to verify, unless he's a real bro and I trust his
tastes. Likes is a good example of people 'paying' their useless attention
which has no price. It's free anyone can give out 'likes' as many or as
senselessly as they want. Instead of credit card, you get people's clicking
action that supposedly builds you street cred but like this article
highlights, it's mostly comprised of no significant value to the advertiser.

~~~
sandieman
People don't watch television to watch commercials.

People don't drive on the freeway to see billboards.

This argument that advertising must be like google "advertise people looking
for things" is not the value Facebook is offering advertisers. It's offering
something significantly different and in many ways bigger. "Advertise people
when not looking for things"

~~~
netcan
I've discussed this a few times with people and I think I disagree, sort of.
People don't watch television to watch commercials but strange as it seems
that ad for fairy dishwashing liquid is very natural to what TV does. TV makes
culture, especially low brow culture. It decides what is popular, trend,
famous, etc.

The laundry detergent on TV is the famous laundry detergent, just like the
actor on TV is the famous one. Branding is really trying to turn the thing
you're selling into a cultural icon.

~~~
sandieman
The examples to counter this are beyond just television.. people don't goto
airports to get advertised with IBM or barracuda advertising.

People don't goto football games to watch the Goodyear blimp.

People never ask to be advertised to but..,

Where people go in mass, advertisers want to reach them.

There is no place people go consistently more than Facebook and they have the
best mechanism for targeting so many niche sets of users.

And to argue facebook isn't culturally relevant vs TV. I'm a little bit lost
with that one. Memes and videos everyone must watch are a cultural phenomenon
heavily driven by Facebook.

The fact that Facebook advertising targets you so well (or not) is something
that is a common conversation just like talking about the annoying (or not)
commercials that exist on TV.

------
joelrunyon
I've spend quite a bit of money on facebook ads for various of my own
businesses & clients & I've basically stopped everything for a few reasons.

I can't rationalize playing FB's game anymore. With the recent decrease in
page reach, you're basically paying double time for FB. Once to "get" the fans
and then again to "reach" them.

Sure, we saw an increase in site activity, but it was debatable whether or not
that actually increased revenue. I'd rather put my money towards users who are
searching for our products explicitly or building up our own email list that
we can "reach" anytime we want.

The best results we got for FB were through adroll or perfect audience that
were utilizing facebook retargeting.

[1] [http://www.adroll.com/](http://www.adroll.com/) [2]
[https://www.perfectaudience.com/](https://www.perfectaudience.com/)

~~~
mattmanser
How can it be debatable? Either your sales increased, or they did not
increase.

If your page views went up but your conversion rate dropped by the same
amount, that would be worthless traffic.

This is an honest question as why should we believe anything you say if you're
not even doing the basic maths? Did you measure anything?

~~~
joelrunyon
I should clarify:

It was debatable whether or not it increased revenue enough to justify the
costs (both time & monetary) involved. What it came down to was that it wasn't
profitable enough to justify the opportunity costs of executing FB instead of
other avenues.

~~~
mattmanser
Good answer, you obviously do measure well, fair enough!

I now just challenge anything without numbers, it's frustrating to read wooly
posts about SEO or online advertising that aren't explicit. You always wonder
if they actually know what they're talking about or just one of those useless
'theory' guys.

------
regal
Facebook may be targeting more traditional big brand advertisers than it is
small business advertisers (who need ads to convert to sales in a much tighter
window). e.g., the Coca-Cola commercial you see on TV probably doesn't make a
single person get up out of his chair, go grab his car keys, and drive to the
store and buy a Coke. Yet, over time, get exposed to enough of those ads, and
when it's time to buy, your hand instinctively goes for the one your brain is
bombarded with ads for all day.

Then again, Facebook ads give advertisers much less of an "in your face,
brainwashing you against your will" impact than TV commercials do.

This might just be a case of a revenue model that simply doesn't fit the
platform. It may be that Facebook is going to have to figure out another way
to justify its high P/E ratio.

~~~
bluedino
>> the Coca-Cola commercial you see on TV probably doesn't make a single
person get up out of his chair, go grab his car keys, and drive to the store
and buy a Coke.

>> Yet, over time, get exposed to enough of those ads, and when it's time to
buy, your hand instinctively goes for the one your brain is bombarded with ads
for all day.

I don't really think that has anything to do with it. At work we having both
Coke and Pepsi vending machines. Most people prefer the taste of one or the
other, to the point where if a place only serves Coke and they prefer Pepsi,
they won't order it. Not unlike beer in America (Bud Light vs Miller Lite,
etc)

Soft drink choices come down to availability most of the time. Chances are if
you are at an event such as a sports game or concert, they've already made the
choice for you. Same goes for a restaurant, McDonald's has Coke and Taco Bell
has Pepsi.

~~~
wpietri
> I don't really think [brand advertising] has anything to do with it. [...]
> Soft drink choices come down to availability most of the time.

Coca Coca spends about $3 billion a year on advertising. [1] I couldn't find a
breakdown for how much is brand-building versus other goals, but I think we
can agree it's a lot.

That suggests two hypotheses: A) People in charge of a $3 billion budget for
an incredibly profitable and long-lived company know what they're doing, or B)
An anonymous non-expert on the Internet has correctly realized that
advertisers are just fooling themselves, and he (and everybody else) is above
being manipulated by brand advertising.

No offense, but I'm going with A.

[1] [http://www.ajc.com/news/business/coca-cola-spent-more-
than-2...](http://www.ajc.com/news/business/coca-cola-spent-more-
than-29-billion-on-advertisin/nQq6X/)

~~~
orclev
I'm going to go with B. Just because "everyone is doing it" doesn't mean they
know what they're doing. Coke spends a ton of money on advertising because
they want more sales and common wisdom says the way to get more sales is to
spend a ton of money on advertising. It might work, it might not, but it isn't
a simple 1 to 1 thing and it works differently on different people.

On a personal note, I grew up drinking Coke (because my dad preferred it), and
I generally prefer the taste of Coke most likely because it's what I grew up
drinking. I've seen Coke ads, and I've seen Pepsi ads, and neither one makes
me want to drink one or the other or go buy one or the other. About the only
thing it might do is influence me to go get a Coke if I was already feeling a
bit thirsty although even if it was a Pepsi ad it would probably still make me
want to get a Coke. In this case it would be a win for Soda vs. some other
kind of drink like say a Starbucks coffee, not specifically Coke vs. Pepsi.

~~~
danudey
There was a really great discussion on Reddit (of all places) about the
purposes and results of advertising. One of the things someone brought up was
that a lot of times, ads are there to reinforce your existing preferences and
purchasing decisions, and not to influence your making of them.

Post:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14y695/el...](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14y695/eli5_why_does_cocacola_still_advertise/)

See the first reply to the first post:

> Holy fuck. You're right. I bought a car recently, and while the TV spots had
> nothing to do with my decision, now when I see them, I sing along with the
> song and cheer at the TV and shit.

It turns people who bought your product in to people who are _fans_ of your
product, which makes them more likely to become repeat purchasers (and less
likely to seriously consider other brands when it's time to purchase).

------
unclebucknasty
When launching something new about mid-last year, I went back on my long-
standing feeling that FB was esentially worthless for companies (I generally
don't believe that people really care about busineses on FB).

So, I went ahead and created a page, whereupon FB immediately began pushing me
to buy likes (as I call it) or promote my page (as they call it). It felt
extraordinarily scammy, especially given that I would then have to pay even
more to reach those same people later.

But, I pushed through and tried it. The results were abysmal. Less than 100
likes, very little engagement, and a couple of conversions. Probably cost me
about $1K.

Now, it can be argued that it was our message, service, etc. But, this story
repeats itself all too often. I think the value of an FB like is highly
overrated, even for "validation" purposes. People are increasingly turning a
deaf ear to what their friends like and/or what shows up in their feeds. In
fact, the very proliferation of like activity that FB and other companies push
has diminished the value of likes over time until they are now completely
meaningless or nearly so.

~~~
e12e
I think the issue is more that facebook inflated likes by interfacing with
companies, killing the "organic" likes at the same time. I no longer see most
likes from my friends -- not because they've stopped like-ing things -- but
because facebook is unreasonably throttling the activity stream for some
reason. Why would I be friends with these people on facebook if I didn't want
to see some of their activities -- or want them to see some of my activities?
I don't get it.

~~~
unclebucknasty
Yeah, killing organic likes is part of it. When you promote the heck out of
likes and what's like-able starts to be more dependent on who is willing to
pay for them, then they naturally become less organic.

------
jeremyjarvis
The title is a bit "baity"/misleading. They were only advertising for Facebook
"likes" \- not clickthrus etc.

It should probably read, "We stopped advertising for likes on Facebook". To
which we'd probably just nod or shrug.

------
guelo
Facebook has trained a lot of people to be afraid of Like-ing anything,
installing any apps, associating anything with Facebook, etc. It's like
they're searching for every possible gold-laying goose and killing it.

------
trustfundbaby
PS: this is wrt to "likes" vs the facebook ad part of the post

Not to mention that Facebook has drastically throttled updates pushed from
pages to a users timeline, making the whole concept pretty useless unless you
pay them (I know, I know, capitalism at its finest).

About a year or two ago, each update that came from our page (auto update from
an rss feed) would be seen by 100 - 300 people, now we're lucky if 30 people
see an update, usually its more like 7 - 15.

Whats the point?

------
jrub
Buying likes (beyond a certain point) anymore is largely an outdated
methodology. Once you've got a significant number of likes for your Page on
Facebook (which is kind of a case-by-case number, depending on your brand,
business, demographic, etc) you don't need to focus as much as building an
audience.

Facebook has released a wealth of tools via their advertising platform in the
last 12 months that make serving ads to the users you want to reach a much
easier prospect. You don't need a super-large 2 million user base Page in
order to get the word about your product out. Granted, you do have to pay for
distribution now, instead of a few years ago when it was free, but the tools
that are available (ad units, targeting, etc) are vastly better than what was
available 2-3 years ago.

So, the article is correct in it's denouncing the value of a "like" on FB, but
that value was always due to drop. Having more fans early on in the days of
Pages was the main indicator of the success that a brand was having on FB.
Those days are long gone, and [FB] marketers have to be more intelligent and
deliberate about their strategies, and they have to be willing to put their
money where their mouth is.

------
pawelkomarnicki
Nothing new to be honest — I figured out Facebook likes are useless when
Facebook gave me 20€ or something like that for reaching first 100 likes; long
story short — "likers" never actually did anything in my website, just liked
it.

~~~
Peroni
Exact same story here. Free £25 voucher for facebook advertising. Targeted a
very specific niche in the London region. Got a few likes, the vast majority
(more than 98%) were people way outside the demographic I targeted and it had
zero impact on my click-throughs.

------
ig1
It's a pretty weak article, if they wanted to drive traffic to their site why
were they focusing on getting likes rather than CTR ?

Doing internal FB advertising only really makes sense if you have a strong FB
presence (i.e. Facebook game or if you push lots of sharable content via your
FB page).

~~~
the_watcher
Exactly. They went about it backwards. They should have focused on driving
traffic (website clicks). A successful traffic-driving campaign has a
byproduct of likes. Even better, those likes tend to be people who used and
actually liked your product, rather than those who just clicked like.

NOTE: If you have less than 1000 likes, you should pay for likes until you get
up to that number, as it unlocks some advertiser features.

~~~
corobo
What features are unlocked? I only know of boost but that appears at 50 likes.
I can't see anything different on my page with >1000.

------
martinshen
I just checked out nearby.lk's Facebook page and it's no wonder that they
weren't getting performance out of Facebook Ads.

Facebook Ads are amazing. Nothing else has come close for us both for direct
conversion and likes. Likes are far cheaper to acquire and can be extremely
performant if used in the right ways.

Facebook has a huge learning curve though. As with all things, if your FB page
doesn't have "page/audience fit" before the ad campaign, it won't after the ad
campaign either.

------
Mistone
A few things to add, my background is in running direct response marketing
campaigns for tech/web Co's. A few years back we did a small monthly ad spend
via facebook, basically display ads with very cheap CPM's and even then pretty
great demo targeting, but poor results. It was cheap and semi relevant so we
continued on.

In the last 3-6 months many of the Co's I've been working with have greatly
expanded their FB advertising with CPA's on par or better than Adwords Search.
It's very important to separate branded and non branded search terms on
Adwords when evaluating a campaign. Non branded is what matters for evaluating
effectivess of Search campaigns.

FB has a huge advantage in demographic targeting. There are only so many
relevant queries on Adwords and once you have covered your bases with relevant
KW's, its hard to profitably scale past that stage. You can endlessly optimize
but the gains are incremental.

I agree that buying likes on FB is not great, the exception is if your super
targeted by demo and location, and then do friends of friends lead campaigns
on top of the newly acquired likes, that can work, but it takes patience and a
bit of budget.

FB's rising stock price is a direct result of their expanding share of
advertising budgets.

------
jrockway
Back in the old days, businesses advertised in order to sell their product.
Anyone still doing that?

~~~
JacobAldridge
Back in the old days, businesses sold a product. Anyone still doing that?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Yes, but its all made in China. (Nothing wrong with that.)

------
Kiro
I think Facebook Ads to get likes are really good to get those first 100 or
1000 likes that make you look like a serious product. However, you should
never expect that ad spend to generate any other value than that.

~~~
kayoone
in that case you can just buy 10k chinese likes on ebay for a dime. They are
worthless except increasing the counter.

~~~
Kiro
I've tried that but they disappear after a while. The ones you get from
Facebook Ads are real people who will also normally like your posts etc.

------
babuskov
I found that using FB advertising to promote your website or product works:

[http://bigosaur.com/blog/28-facebook-ads-android-
players](http://bigosaur.com/blog/28-facebook-ads-android-players)

I would use it as a sales funnel, but anything beyond that would belong into
"Brand Recognition" which is really impossible to measure anyway and only the
biggest brands who target general population should do it.

------
scottrafer
This is just silly. Even Facebook discourages buying likes at this point and
says they have no value. Of course, you aren't seeing performance.

~~~
elbear
How are they discouraging buying likes if they tell you the number of likes
you will get when you want to promote your Facebook page?

------
ankitoberoi
I use FB advertising to generate leads for my retail education business. We
use Adwords too.

CPL via FB is about $1 (we're in India) and the CPL via Adwords is about 80
cents. Conversions: FB is basically garbage, less than .5%, while Adwords does
way better and gives a positive ROI.

I have used Adwords retargeting but not FB retargeting, has it been beneficial
to anyone?

------
exelius
Likes for the sake of likes are meaningless. The value of the whole Like
system is that it gives you some notion of brand reach and adoption. You
undermine that with programs specifically designed to drive Likes.

Facebook encourages programs like this because they make money off of them.
But they're a sucker's game; internet marketing is still internet marketing
and people who are good at it know how to assess the value of an online
marketing campaign with cold numerical efficiency.

Google's advertising system is still far superior to Facebook's because it's
built in such a way that Google makes more money when their advertisers make
more money. Facebook still has yet to find a way to show real ROI in the way
that Google does. I think they will eventually, but right now their mantra is
that social marketing is different than online marketing.

------
sharkweek
Their overall monetization plan with pages seems terribly short sighted. I've
been pitching how to limit reliance on FB to clients for a while now, as we
turn to other sources for social acquisition. I think this could be damaging
in the long term for FB as this will likely become the trend.

A bit unrelated but if Facebook wants to make truckloads of money... I am
still trying to figure out what the holdup is for an Adsense competitor -- I'd
definitely try it on some of my content sites.

Most people browse the web logged into FB, so it doesn't seem THAT problematic
from a technical standpoint. It also wouldn't be that out of place for me to
start expecting ads based off of profile data.

Could you imagine how targeted the offsite ads could be? The marketer in me is
already salivating over the concept.

I feel like I'm missing something incredibly obvious here.

~~~
the_watcher
Facebook wants you on Facebook as often as possible. They are taking the
opposite path to monetizing the same data. I'm noticing now that their FBX
retargeting has gone beyond just sites I visit to sites similar to those that
I have recently visited. I'm also noticing really improved cross-device
consistency, as they are using my UID to link my devices when I am logged in
to Facebook (across the web, as you said).

~~~
sharkweek
Valid point -- I suppose the functions of Google and FB are different. But
even then, still seems like a great revenue stream

~~~
the_watcher
I agree, I'm an online marketer too and I'd pay a fortune for a Facebook
informed AdSense. Just don't think it's in their roadmap, as it fights against
their world domination goal.

------
cummerbund
Promoted Likes have always made me nervous on FB. One of the Pages I help
manage ran a Like campaign. The page is very niche specific and appeals to
people living in a certain area. Even though the campaign was targeted, an
abnormal (around half) amount of new Likes came from Bangladesh (not targeted,
not even close to a target market). We complained but it didn't help. That was
2 years ago and I've seen similar stories since then. Haven't trusted this
sort of campaign since that experience and would advise anyone to stay clear
of it. Unless of course you want to get Likes for vanity. In that sense, this
campaign will help populate your Page, but expect low quality "fans", which
could hurt your reach and engagement levels and screw you over with Edgerank.

------
the_watcher
I've run millions of dollars worth of Facebook ad campaigns. "Like" campaigns
are the equivalent of brand advertising, a world in which there are no
directly measurable metrics, so advertisers judge their performance based on
metrics like "Did your ad campaign increase awareness?". Also, surprisingly,
the most effective way I found for actually acquiring likes cheaply was to run
direct response campaigns focusing on clicks to website, offer claims, and
website conversions. So we got the best of both worlds, cheap fan-getting, as
well as DR conversions. Basically, what I found was that to get their desired
result of "people who visit your website then like the page," it is much more
effective and cheap to focus on driving them to your page.

------
ignostic
I'm not surprised that the "get more likes" campaigns fail to generate
positive ROI. If you goal is to get people to sign up on your site why not
create ads that at least drive people to your site?

This is maybe the third or fourth post I've read along the same lines: a lot
of people aren't seeing ROI and engagement. FB isn't right for everyone, but
there ARE people making money on it. Aside from having the right product and
service offerings that do work on FB, you need to make sure you have the right
campaign with clear goals and smart targeting. Without auditing their
targeting options I can't say whether they got any of this right, but their
Facebook content and profile aren't really set up for a liking campaign's ROI
either.

------
static332
The author has described, which is pretty obvious for any enterprise that have
used facebook advertising to gain followers. They do not convert, and even
worse, they don't help spread the word. Unless you post a photo of lolCatz.
But how exactly a serious profession like I am in (logistics) can keep posting
lolz cats photos. ;)

As for Facebook for advertising your products i.e links to your product pages
or website, the ROI is worse. But I keep using it however, because in my
market, using Adwords is no more affordable, I roughly pay $0.03 for a
Facebook ad click, while the same costs me $0.25 on adwords. That's why I had
to give up on Adwords.

------
charlie_vill
In the expense of time I'll keep this short: Facebook likes are more important
than you may considered. After working with online marketing we found out that
Facebook suggest your likes to people in your networks. That means if you like
a certain page, your friends are most likely going to be shown that like,
hence increasing the possibility of them liking your page.

I myself have discovered many pages, articles and even bought products online
based on what Facebook suggests I should like. Like the shoes I'm wearing now.
It really does work even though there isn't an easy way to track it. Don't
underestimate what a Like can do.

------
rudyrigot
There is one use case where Facebook likes are useful, even critical: in
online brand protection. Users that actively "like" your page to receive your
news have been proven to "like" the page with your company's name that has the
highest number of likes (in other words: the most liked page is perceived to
be the official page). If there are other pages about your company created by
third-parties, and that get enough likes to be mistaken for you, you
definitely want to have more likes, to make sure to remain the page that is
perceived as official, and keep using Facebook as an information channel.

------
damaru
Whatever nice algorithm or perfect code facebook could uses for the
advertising the problem will always remain, people go on facebook to connect
with other people, or to peep on people they don't know - that's its market
share, nothing more and I don't think they can change that. It's a flawed
model and I don't think it'll survive for long. It could have become a great
protocole if it had been open since the start, but it'll probably have the
same ending as... what was it, myPlace?

------
lloyddobbler
To me, the big WTF is that Facebook has recently effectively said "If you
don't pay to promote your updates, they're going to be seen by a lot less
people in the future - including those who already "Like" your page.

So the decision of whether to purchase "Likes" on Facebook is now much more of
a no-brainer. You're not going to see the same ROI on ad spend as you once did
(and even then, the ROI was tentative at best).

------
linux_devil
There is a vast difference between number of likes and actual people talking
about product(which matters) . In most cases followers on twitters and likes
on facebook are some random user profile which can't correlate with your
industry specific product and large number of such profiles look fake. I won't
recommend concentrating on likes and followers but it's the engagement which
actually matters .

------
tlarkworthy
I would not read too much into this. Whether FB is good for business depends
on your business. I know a company who is scaling back everything but Facebook
because all their business is done through facebook, with clear analytics
showing the discovery of their product is foremost on FB.

FB, for some industries, has great targeting. Tech business, probably not so
much.

PS they target demographics, not getting likes

------
raverbashing
"We stopped advertising on Facebook to get Facebook “likes”, because we felt
that it was a giant fruitless scheme of making Facebook rich. "

Yes, if your only objective is to get Facebook likes don't do that.

And by the way they don't seem to get Facebook. Or Social Media Advertising.

But I hand to them that 'like' has become a random thing.

~~~
Fede_V
Everyone I've ever seen who has talked about how much they 'get' Social Media
Advertising has been a snake oil salesman.

~~~
raverbashing
Possible

However this is not about "getting" (and bragging) this is about "not getting"

But you're right, if the person is bragging this is usually a red flag.

It's like someone bragging about "How they know how to write stories with
Word" or how they can totally "Do calculation with Excel"

------
Idothis
I don't see why people are complaining...facebook's job is to get your
product/services in front of your would-be customers. It's your duty or the
duty of your marketing department to brainstorm winning strategies to engage
your audience.

------
dclara
From business point of view, we want to push our ads to the users. So forget
about buying "likes", but use "Clicks to Website, Website Conversions".
Anybody has any successful story on that kind of ads on FB?

The targeted users become victim, though.

------
crystaln
TLDR: We were paying for likes on Facebook, even though we had no idea what
they were or why we wanted them. We also haven't done any research on other
ways to advertise on facebook because we assume that's the only way.

------
linux_devil
We did a study among likes and retweets , [http://www.beevolve.com/social-
media-audience/](http://www.beevolve.com/social-media-audience/) just in case
if you are interested

------
tednash
From first hand experience I absolutely agree with this.

Using Facebook's own PPC channels we are getting fraudulent clicks and fake
profiles come via Facebook as a legitimate cost.

'Fraudulent' being the most important word.

------
methodin
Real likes == money spent

Unless the customer was duped into spending (free trials)

------
ivanbrussik
facebook also ditching sponsored stories as of apr 9

[https://developers.facebook.com/roadmap/](https://developers.facebook.com/roadmap/)

------
Idothis
All this talk about facebook advertising not gener

