

How Facebook Is Selling Your Timeline to Advertisers - shakes
http://www.betabeat.com/2011/12/23/exclusive-leaked-details-of-how-facebook-plans-to-sell-your-timeline-to-advertisers/

======
untog
I think we've reached the point where no-one should be surprised about this.
And besides:

 _What most users don’t know is that the new features being introduced are all
centered around increasing the value of Facebook to advertisers_

Centered? I don't know. Timeline seems pretty user-centric to me. I've had it
for a few months as a developer, but since it became public I've seen plenty
of my friends filling out details, tagging their friends in previous big life
events... they're not doing it because Facebook tricked them into it, they're
doing it because they want to.

Yes, there is also an advertiser advantage to this- same as any information
you plug into Facebook. But I don't think it's fair to paint Facebook as
cynically putting Timeline together so that they can mine data. If you're
comfortable with the way Facebook makes money (which, personally, I am)
there's nothing to go crazy about in here.

~~~
jdp23
Most of the people I talk with don't like the idea of their pictures and words
being shown to their friends as ads for products. Most of the people I talk
with don't like the idea that things on their profile and in their feed are
influenced by how much money Facebook can charge from ads. Most people I talk
with are already sick of Facebook changing their interface and pretty
skeptical about Timeline (they don't have the time to invest in tweaking it,
they're concerned about old status messages and photos becoming a lot more
visible) so get irritated when reminded that it's main goal is to maximize
-exploitation- revenue.

So yeah, it's true that at some level nobody's particularly surprised by this
any more. People are sick of Facebook and waiting for what's next, and for
most of them Timeline will just reinforce those feelings.

~~~
untog
_Most people I talk with are already sick of Facebook changing their interface
and pretty skeptical about Timeline_

Most people 'hate' every single change Facebook has ever made, yet somehow
manage to totally forget about it within about two months. People hate change.

Honestly, if "most people" are annoyed that Facebook serves ads based on the
content of their profile then they should leave Facebook. Because that's the
business model the site operates on.

~~~
jdp23
I don't think they forget about it, any more than they forget about Facebook's
pattern of privacy abuses and Mark's non-apologies. If there were an easy-to-
use alternative, the people I talk to would love to leave FB instantly; as it
is, they're cutting down how much they use it and feeling increasingly
resentful. So yes they've posted great numbers in 2011 but from a competitive
strategy perspective they're vulnerable.

~~~
untog
The people you talk to are not typical. "Most people" aren't aware/bothered by
the privacy aspects of Facebook- just look at the number of visible, insecure
profiles.

Facebook is not vulnerable from a privacy standpoint- that was the reason
everyone said that they were moving to Google+. They didn't.

~~~
jdp23
The people I'm talking to are moms, dads, students, photographers, recent
graduates, old friends from high school in rural Pennsylvania, relatives,
people at the place I get my hair cut ... okay, admittedly I get my hair cut
in San Francisco, and I talk to privacy advocates as well. It's not unanimous
by any means, plenty of people still think it's just fine, but if they lose
even 5-10% of their usage and/or engagement over the next quarter they'll have
a real problem getting the IPO valuation they want.

Inability to use buggy poorly-designed extremely complex software correctly is
not evidence that people don't care. I'm a software engineer and security guy
and deal well with complexity and even so I haven't been able to figure out
how to keep my profile both visible to the people I want to and secure without
devoting way more time than I have available. When I tell people that they
often respond "oh thank god it's not just me".

It's not just privacy; it's the whole pattern. The constantly-changing UX is a
huge deal to a lot of people, and so is the general attitude of "you're the
product" and Zuckerberg's non-apologies.

Agreed that Google+ botched their short-term chance but it has decent usage
and now has a much better first-user experience so if people react badly to
Timeline, there is an alternative. In any case Google+ has clearly shown
there's pent-up demand for a Facebook alternative. They'll keep investing in
any case, and there are plenty of other options coming along. I talked about
this back in September in "In Chaos there is Opportunity"
<http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=3163>

------
orijing
Hi, I'm an engineer from Facebook's ads team. I worked on ads for Timeline.

The article's unsubstantiated premise is that Facebook releases products
solely with its bottom line in mind. Based on my experience working on ads for
Timeline, I'd say that this is antithetical to our nature. We optimized
timeline for user experience (engagement) and released it not because of its
impact to our bottom line but DESPITE that.

If you aren't convinced, look at the ads on Timeline, and compare to Profile.
There were on average four ads per Profile page. Now there's two. People also
click away a lot faster on Profile (because there's less content), but people
now scroll around and navigate within Timeline. Photos are bigger, we show a
lot more content. The resources to support these new products are expensive.
If this doesn't illustrate our focus on engagement over our bottom line, color
me surprised.

Just another point I wanted to clarify: Whenever money changed hands, even for
organic content like sponsored stories, they are clearly labeled "Sponsored."
If you don't see Sponsored, there was no optimization for revenue, because no
money changed hands.

Ultimately, I think the author is exploiting a confusion between news feed and
timeline. Sure, we will experiment with sponsoring organic content in news
feed (max one), but they will be clearly labeled and things you can already
see.

I just wanted to clarify a few issues that the author is either truly confused
about, or is aware of but intentionally exploiting. I hope this helped.

If you have any questions I can answer, I'll be happy to clarify.

~~~
ktusznio
Just because Timeline shows fewer ads doesn't mean that net ad revenue doesn't
come out ahead. Sponsored stories just need to make up for those 3 missing
ads, which they almost surely will.

Optimizing for user engagement, when you make money off of ads, is optimizing
for the bottom line by definition. To claim otherwise is disingenuous at best.

~~~
orijing
> Optimizing for user engagement, when you make money off of ads, is
> optimizing for the bottom line by definition. To claim otherwise is
> disingenuous at best.

Well, optimizing for f(x) (revenue) is different than optimizing for g(x)
(engagement), which is related to f(x), and claiming that we are objectively
optimizing for f(x). Not sure if that makes sense, but you are right that it
is to our long term interest to optimize for user engagement, not because it
necessarily optimizes our revenue, but it optimizes our value for users.

That's not the same as optimizing for revenue directly, though, so calling
that "disingenuous at best" is a little misguided.

------
pork
Can't we dispense with the inflammatory and misleading headlines, PLEASE? As
before, FB is selling _space_ on your timeline, not the contents of it. This
is comparable to the targeted ads Hotmail (if I recall) used to insert into
outgoing emails. I don't like it, just as I didn't like ads in my email, but
it's a far cry from what the headline implies.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
According to TFA, the ordering of your timeline is influenced by how much
people pay Facebook. Sounds like selling my timeline to me.

~~~
orijing
If that were true, the sponsored content would be labeled. See
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3388106>

------
dmvaldman
Facebook is so brilliant. I don't see why everyone is whining.

Our world is based fundamentally on consumption, and thus advertising is
integral. In time, advertising is only on a path to becoming more effective.
And to do so it will become more integrated with our lives. History confirms:
this is quite unavoidable. Plan accordingly.

However, while Google spends countless resources tinkering with their ad
delivery algorithms to get that 1% increase that generates them millions more
revenue, FB rolls in with a new paradigm that I'm sure will leapfrog whatever
Google has done. Brilliant.

~~~
fl3tch
If I'm going to appear in ads, then I want a cut of the revenue, just like
every other compensated endorser.

~~~
gujk
Would you accept a free blog, email, photo album, and realtime chat software,
with Web and mobile cliens, hosted in the cloud?

OK.

~~~
fl3tch
That was the old model, where ads were served _to_ us in exchange for free
services. This is a new model, as others have pointed out, where my identity /
likeness is being used (without my explicit permission, mind you) to sell
products. Famous people sue over stuff like that, but I'll just take the
compensation.

------
cienrak
Isn't this just how the sausage is made? It is interesting that Timeline
actually makes it easier to disrupt the flow of personal information and
privilege ads over friends. But this is how the marketing department of any
big company would see it. Can't IPO without getting your hands dirty.

~~~
killnine
Almost severing sharing

------
blacksmythe

      >> new features being introduced are all centered around increasing the value of Facebook to advertisers
    

<Casablanca ref> Facebook's business model is selling eyeballs to advertisers?
I am shocked... shocked. </Casablanca ref>

------
silentscope
<http://www.tony5m17h.net/MatrixHumanField.gif>

------
suprgeek
An excellent time to mention the FB Purity extension
<http://www.fbpurity.com/>

where F.B stands for fluff bustin (due to Copyright asserted on the word
"Facebook")

If you must use this necessary evil called FB, I think it is high time users
started pushing back on the types of info they want to see and are willing to
put-up with.

------
j45
So, if you don't activate timeline... there's nothing to sell?

~~~
jay_m
The article mentions that Timeline will be activated on all Facebook accounts
by the end of this year.

~~~
silverbax88
I really don't know, but it sure seems like a potential horrible, Netflix
level misstep. There's no evidence that FB users want Timeline or that it will
work the way they want their social network to work.

~~~
conradfr
As an average FB user I must admit I don't see the appeal in Timeline. I don't
find it clear nor readable but it could be some resistance to change.

------
cejung
The end is near Facebook. Milk Wall Street while you can bro.

------
rblion
Big Brother Blue is growing bigger and we are not humans from their
perspective, we are data converted to profit. This was expected, not a
surprise.

~~~
rblion
neg away. this is the blunt truth, not a coincidence that these 'innovations'
are unveiled this close to the IPO. they want to cash in before while they
can. the greater the rise, the greater the fall, gravity is not sentimental.

------
artursapek
You know, this has something to it. For weeks the first story in the top-right
module of my timeline said I "liked" Bed Bath & Beyond, and for weeks I
wondered why it wasn't being pushed off by the other things that go through
that little box (new friendships, attending events, etc).

I guess Bed Bath & Beyond is a customer. I honestly like this though, because
the ad is reactive to their merit - I went and clicked that like button.
Facebook is so clever. They're turning parts of our activity into
advertisements by making them somewhat longer-lasting. It's much more pleasant
than having an Acura ad shoved down my throat on YouTube, or having to drive
past a smug 100-foot McDonalds ad every morning.

