

Is Facebook “broken on purpose” to sell promoted posts? - molecule
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/11/is-facebook-broken-on-purpose-to-sell-promoted-posts/

======
rickyyean
The post linked to in the article from Facebook's ad engineer is here, for
easier access: [http://www.facebook-studio.com/news/item/news-feed-
engagemen...](http://www.facebook-studio.com/news/item/news-feed-engagement-
and-promoted-posts-how-they-work)

Facebook has been ranking the posts in your News Feed for a long time. The
incentives are aligned, Facebook wants you to engage with items in your News
Feed. Page owners want people to engage with their posts. If you don't like it
as a user, you can change the News Feed sort to "Most Recent." Advertisers who
don't want engagement can potentially buy different kinds of ad units to
accomplish whatever it is that you care about (clicks, sales, etc).

I do think Facebook wants to keep you on Facebook, so they paid attention
first to making "native" ads that work on Facebook. If you are only going for
traffic to your site, you are not using your Facebook Page for what it's best
at, which is helping you naturally become part of a conversation that people
are having with their friends. I think that's very meaningful and a much
better advertising experience. If you care about traffic, Twitter's promoted
tweets are very good at sending traffic to your site. If you think about it,
that also makes sense because that's what's "natural" on Twitter (i.e. we use
Twitter to discover interesting content online that we can then click on to go
consume).

With that said, Mark Cuban did recently get really angry about this too
([https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=460717227304430&...](https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=460717227304430&set=a.185767724799383.39013.156011887774967&type=1))
and I understand why. He worked hard to get 2.3M fans on Facebook for the
Dallas Mavericks because that's what Facebook was about before. But then a
post only reached 27k fans organically and he was asked to pony up $3k to
reach ~50% of his fans. That just sounds too much like blackmail. Facebook
failed to communicate and manage the expectations of Page owners. They didn't
know that their posts were never reaching 100% of the fans, and when that
became apparent, they noticed that the algorithm was updated and depressed the
reach numbers significantly. With the recent IPO, Page owners think Facebook
is money hungry, and then they noticed the new Promoted Posts so they fired
back. Facebook could've just communicated more to manage people's expectations
along the way.

~~~
ryanmolden
>If you don't like it as a user, you can change the News Feed sort to "Most
Recent"

I have done this probably hundreds of times. Facebook seems incapable of
remembering this, or unwilling to. I have taken a highly scientific poll of at
least a dozen of my friends and they see the same thing. It is annoying to
have to keep saying "no, really, most recent", pretty much every day. So much
so I would say it has lessened the amount of time I spend on Facebook, which
is probably a net-positive for me personally, but I suspect that was not
Facebook's goal here.

~~~
akcreek
Same here. I only use FB to keep up with brands and bands that I like. I don't
use it to connect with friends so it is incredibly annoying that I have to
click to see the top stories every time I visit. I also can't stand that they
remove posts... I don't "like" things to see just some of what they post.

A good example is that I went to a show that was canceled the other day
because that post wasn't in my feed like it should have been. I have to go to
individual pages to make sure I'm not missing anything, which defeats the
purpose of a feed.

~~~
waterlesscloud
People say this all the time, but I have never once had this problem. I set it
to one time and that was it.

I wonder what causes the difference?

~~~
Leynos
AB testing?

------
JoeCortopassi
I think it's pretty obvious that "Promoted Posts" are not the answer to
Facebook's revenue problem, but their desperation to make it work says a lot
about the lack of options that they have. While it may have been technically
unrelated to the introduction of "Promoted Posts", Facebook's culling of
people's news feed smacks of a shake down. Unfortunately, Facebook has played
fast and loose with their user's trust, to such an extent, that nobody trusts
their motives anymore. Mark my words, Facebook's eventual downfall will be do
to it's burned bridges, way more than any poor design/feature implementation

~~~
snprbob86
> Unfortunately, Facebook has played fast and loose with their user's trust

I just did an informal (ie verbal) poll over four non-technical, but
intelligent friends. I said "Have you guys heard of Facebook Promoted Posts" 3
yeses and 1 no. Then I said to the yeses "Has it changed your Facebook
experience in any way?" One friend said "Not that I know of" and the other two
agreed.

The only people who are upset about this change are advertisers and geeks.
Facebook isn't burning any bridges tweaking feed rankings in the exact same
way Google doesn't burn any bridges when they tweak search result rankings.
Advertisers aren't going to flee Facebook for the same reasons they haven't
fled Google: Facebook and Google own the eyeballs. Advertisers go where the
eyeballs are. Full stop.

This seems like a brilliant move for Facebook. Users see _fewer_ posts by
Pages. Facebook receives additional revenue. And the big spenders in
advertising are so delighted with their increased impressions, that they are
willing to spend even more. Seems strategically sound to me...

~~~
fkdjs
Anecdotal and unscientific in terms of not comparing apples to apples.

You would need to show your friends the posts they missed at best, or at least
show a competing service, over the same set of messages, which isn't possible.

The fact that people aren't upset doesn't mean that the user experience is the
same. Perhaps it's a bit shitier now, but they just don't know it, like a frog
slowly boiling.

re: comparing to google, google can tweak algorithms, then users use bing _to
search over the same data set_. That is competition, and Google must
constantly be on top of things, so users who are happy with google, tend to
know way more than users who are supposedly happy with facebook.

What this means is Facebook could very well be slowly boiling their users in
order to get more cash, or you may be right and users really don't mind. If
there were real competition to facebook, we would find out. Unfortunately,
facebook doesn't want you to export your data so you can find out.

~~~
patrickk
Even if you did export your data, you can't export your friends to a competing
social network. The real reason there's no threat to Facebook is because of
the network effect.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect>

~~~
wtvanhest
The concept of network effect has been taught by B-school professors as a rule
or law rather than a theory. Not enough research has been done to show how
network effect can be broken up since it is just recently (last 10 years or
so) been taught. 5 years ago, before Facebook started stealing MySpace’s
users, you could have put the same wiki link and said the same thing.

One could even argue that Facebook is destroying their network effect by not
allowing people to see all posts. The fact that Linkedin, Meetup, Twitter,
heck even the new myspace all exist, there are lots of networks with varying
degrees of network effects which could slowly take facebook share until the
tipping point is crossed.

I’m not predicting facebook’s demise, rather I’m stating that network effects
are important, but have not been proven to create a long term sustainable
competitive advantage.

~~~
Sumaso
"... taught by B-school professors..."

Feeling a little pretentious today? Your point was valid, but your tone was
off-putting.

I think we can all agree that the network effect exists, its only its power
and longevity are what is really in question.

~~~
jemfinch
You've reached DH2 on Paul Graham's hierarchy of disagreement:
<http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html> . Please try responding to content,
not tone.

------
kylec
When it comes to Facebook, never attribute to stupidity that which is
adequately explained by malice.

------
sarah2079
Step 1: Sell ads designed to generate likes. Step 2: Hold those previously
purchased likes hostage by forcing everyone to buy promoted posts in order to
reach their likers. Step3: Wait, come back everybody!

------
doctorpangloss
_Facebook says that "all content should be as engaging as the posts you see
from friends and family." But how does the company square that with the sly
offering of the opportunity to override the irrelevance or poor quality of a
post with dollar bills?_

I think Ars Technica is conflating reputation and quality with audience size.
Number of Likes and Fans corresponds to 1 to 5 star ratings on Amazon—a
measure of quality and reputation; Subscriptions (a relatively new Facebook
feature) correspond to voluntary signups to a newsletter. Growth in the former
doesn't—shouldn't—have anything to do with the later.

You don't buy away the problem of irrelevance or quality: the measure of that
on Facebook is obvious. Lots of Likes = High Quality.

You are just buying a bigger audience. The ads are like buying more
Subscriptions, targeted to people who are likely to Subscribe to your content
anyway.

 _Dangerous Minds wrote about how it rose from 29,000 to 53,000 Facebook likes
even as traffic to its site from shared Facebook posts went down by one half
to two-thirds in the same time period._

Dangerous Minds doesn't get it. Just because you're high quality doesn't mean
you automatically have a huge audience!

I think this is the right move for Facebook from a design point of view. Likes
aren't Shares aren't Subscriptions. Separating the audience measure from the
quality measure helps everyone get better information out of these numbers.

------
DanBC
"Promoted Posts" - I see a promoted post. I read the comments. I see some
people saying "are you going to the pub tonight john?" (being confused about
who posted the post); I see people generally in favour of the post; and then I
see people who attack the organisation that posted.

IKEA (one of the largest charitable organisations in the world) gets many "pay
your tax" comments.

Facebook may have opened the door to something like sarcastic Amazon reviews.

Another thing: The article talks about this from the perspective of someone
posting to many people. I'm interested in the perspective of someone receiving
posts:

I want an option to receive everything that everyone I like or subscribe to
posts. I can turn down my receive frequency if they post too much. Or I can
unsub if they post a ridiculous amount. But this option is not available to me
- I have to go through every single one of my contacts and select this option.

And then I want to be able to set [SORT] to be 'most recent' AND NEVER HAVE TO
TOUCH IT AGAIN rather than having to reset it every few days. The fact that
the sort dropdown is harder to click because the report / hide dropdown down-
arrow interferes with it just makes this more irritating.

~~~
ljf
Sorry, mildly off topic but had to jump in here to add additional information.
IKEA is the worlds largest charity in terms of cash it's sitting on, but it is
not the worlds largest in terms of what it gives away. In 2007 it only gave
away 1.3million euros, despite sitting on 31billion and earning far more. The
stores also still pays between 700million and 1billion to the founding family.
lastly the money it does give away is for the furtherment of architecture.

So while it may be large, I don't think we can let it off the hook of its tax
arrangements, just because it's a charity.
<http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/14675>

~~~
pauljburke
I always took it as read that it's a charity because of the tax arrangements
(i.e. if they didn't benefit from setting it up that way, they wouldn't be a
charity at all).

~~~
phaker
"IKEA" is a network of many different companies. Some of them are registered
as nonprofits (not charities) as a tax optimization which is probably what you
are remembering. There is also the charitable organization that was mentioned
above but afaik that's not for tax purposes.

------
PeterisP
When users had 10 active posters as friends and liked 10 things, it was
reasonable to show "all that you like".

When users have 100 active posters as friends and like 1000 things, most of
the posts do have to be discarded - and money can affect which ones are "more
important".

------
damncabbage
One of the few headlines that are the exception to Betteridge's Law.

(Yes.)

------
andrewljohnson
The ads being stuffed into my Facebook feed are the first time I've really
thought about leaving FB. I don't watch any media with commercials.

~~~
djs070
I didn't so much "leave" as I just stopped going.

~~~
moxon
I've taken the same approach. Also no longer using Facebook Connect to sign up
for new services - which is one of the only reasons for maintaining an
account.

------
damiankennedy
Facebook: No one goes there any more, its too crowded.

~~~
rhizome
(apologies to Yogi Berra)

------
joeblau
It's a pretty smart strategy. Charge people to communicate--it should reduce
spam and bring FB more revenue. One thing I'm not sure of is how effective
promoted posts are. I built a website and tried a few different ad platforms.
I saw the best performance from Google's Adwords and the worst performance
from Facebook.

~~~
jimwalsh
If you build a fan/business page, and get 100 fans. People that enjoy you or
your service. Why should you have to pay to promote your posts just to reach
those very people that already said they enjoy your
company/person/brand/posts. It is a shady way for Facebook to try and milk
their users to keep their shareholders happy. We understand why it's happening
but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do to your users.

~~~
joeblau
I see you're point, but when I look at the history of promotion and
communication; companies have always had to pay to advertise. From
commercials, to newspaper ads to those dreaded dinner time phone calls; Every
medium charged promoters to communicate with customers.

Facebook was allowed to run a hobby until they went public and realized that
they need to make money. This strategy of charging for using the communication
medium just falls in line with what older traditional businesses have done for
decades. At the end of the day, either the content creators and/or content
consumers are going to have to pay--Facebook chose to charge the creators and
I think that's good. If they charged me as a content consumer, I'd shut down
my account.

------
SethMurphy
With the current users (product) not being worth enough they are trying to
flip the table and turn their users into customers too.

I would suspect a subscription model to follow shortly in order to be able to
have your posts distributed in news feeds as before and no longer carry the
'promoted badge'. If you like the service pay, is that too much too ask? Well,
I think Facebook thought it was too much to ask right away, but if they offer
more expensive option, like promoted personal posts, a subscription seems like
a fair deal.

I think this is one of the more transparent moves Facebook has made. This
would not have happened pre IPO (the transparency or begging for money).

~~~
thedudemabry
I think a distinction must be made among users between individuals and brands.
Individuals and their 'likes' are still valuable to Facebook, but brands and
their Fan presence are not. I don't see anything wrong with asking brands to
bring something to the table in order to use Facebook's infrastructure as a
broadcast alternative to Twitter.

If Mark Cuban was using the Mavs fan page as an advertising platform, he
should be willing to pay as long as it provides enough value. Otherwise, go
ahead and move to MySpace or Tumblr. Facebook probably won't miss the traffic.

------
stretchwithme
One thing I've noticed is that I cannot seem to stop notifications from a user
whose posts I know longer want to see. Just tired of the endless
electioneering.

Hopefully, this problem will be fixed in a few days :-)

~~~
mh-
my usage of social media plummets during election season. it's quite a nice
change of pace when it all finally blows over.

~~~
stretchwithme
a wise choice. one can get a pretty negative impression of things and get too
involved in it as well.

------
lazyjones
Leave it to the users to sort out the clutter - allow them to specify for each
page / person they "like" whether they want to see all, some or just popular
posts of that page/person.

As for promotional posts I have to wonder about FB's claims (and the options
displayed on the screenshot): I have had a promotional post in my feed
recently that did not belong to any of the pages I "liked", nor to any of the
pages my FB-friends "liked" (because I have exactly 0). So I guess that's a
bit broken too.

------
JoelMarsh
A lot of social sites are "broken on purpose" to catalyze monetized features —
if the product people are smart.

The problem with Facebook is that they changed an existing feature when people
were closely watching it, and didn't offer any opportunities to go with it.

Generally speaking, it is a no-go to "force" people to use features. It just
doesn't work, and it makes people resentful.

However, if you structure the features in such a way that it "motivates" users
to pay for them, suddenly you get some action.

Facebook should have provided a "carrot" for users in the form of a highly-
coveted free spot for posts that genuinely deserve attention. Nobody complains
about being able to buy the top spot if you can also earn it for free.

That's what Dropbox does, for example. Buy storage or recruit friends to earn
it. All love, no complaints, lots of action.

But Facebook didn't do that, so they get backlash instead. Even the big sites
don't really know what they're doing sometimes.

And don't even get me started about how promoted content hurts the general
idea of an Edge Rank-driven feed...

------
runn1ng
It's funny that those things reappear pretty frequently.

Google is sinking pages on purpose so they buy ads. Facebook is sinking posts
so they buy promoted posts. Yelp is sinking down businesses so they buy ads.

It's possible that those are not without merit, but I am a little sceptical to
those claims. In the long term, it's in their best interest to NOT downrate
non-paying websites/posts/businesses.

~~~
mh-
>Google is sinking pages on purpose so they buy ads.

[citation needed]

~~~
runn1ng
I think there was a story like that on frontpage of hnews few days ago.

I just think that once a service is as big as google/facebook, these things
just happens without malicious intent. Especially if you have a culture of
"hack first, worry later" as Facebook does.

------
buro9
I remember reading the Dangerous Minds post when it appeared on HN and
thinking "How is this not price gouging at best, or extortion at worst?".

I didn't ask at the time as I prefer not to get embroiled in possible flame
topics, but seriously... how isn't this very shady and likely to result in a
class-action?

I ask only to understand, my knowledge of US law isn't extensive (UK citizen
here).

------
belorn
Today, people in general is aware of the bad behavior of Facebook. Just a year
ago, if I mentioned that I do not have an account, I was meet with strange
looks, like it was something unnatural. Today, I get meet with a "aha, ye, I
can understand that" instead.

------
denzil_correa
The sponsored posts on my Facebook News Feed are quite annoying and increase
the noise in my social stream. This has led to decrease in my Facebook
activity.

------
thejosh
That picture is creepy because the eyes don't line up...

------
AJ007
I see parallels here with Google converting their free traffic streams in to
paid clicks; Adwords, Product Listing Ads, etc..

------
wmeredith
Facebook is "broken on purpose" in more ways than one. This is not a difficult
logical leap to make.

------
pella
related comments ( 11 days ago )

"Facebook, I want my friends back (dangerousminds.net)"

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4693655>

------
pootch
Its just as possible that the currency of likes has simply devalued as like
buttons have spread to every corner of the web with facebook login
syndication. What kind of engagement does that really amount to? So maybe
likes dont drive traffic when not done directly on the page itself.

~~~
rhizome
If I understand your point, I can't imagine what the walls of my friends who
Like Washington Post articles, or Target ads, or whatever. I'd like to see a
FB anonymizer service that can handle screenshots or page scrapes in order to
display the effects of different peoples' preferences on their walls. Like a
homepage gallery, I guess!

