
Mozilla’s 18-month effort to market without Facebook - watchdogtimer
https://digiday.com/marketing/after-mozilla-stopped-spending-on-facebook-the-company-increased-its-focus-on-offline-marketing/
======
dpcan
"Facebook was one of our better-performing channels at the time that we made
the decision"

Everyone likes to say they don't use Facebook, but they do. Or at least 10
people they know do.

Local businesses use Facebook relentlessly because, lots of times, it actually
works to get people in the door or calling your number. Small businesses
almost have to use its ad platform (in my opinion). I don't think local
businesses can afford to look away from a top performer like this.

When I ran an escape room business, my fill-rate on weekends was typically
dependent on whether or not I was spending money on Facebook. Google ads were
second. Anything else barely had any ROI. Well - in the first few months of
running the business, the local newspaper actually brought in some people, but
nothing compared to my longer ad runs on Facebook.

I feel like this is a "you don't need Facebook" chant, but I feel that's not
true for all industries, and I hope the take-away here is that maybe a huge
online business with a giant ad budget can find other means, but if you are a
small local business with $300 a month for marketing, I personally believe
that you kind-of need Facebook.

~~~
josefresco
>Local businesses use Facebook relentlessly because, lots of times, it
actually works to get people in the door or calling your number. Small
businesses almost have to use its ad platform (in my opinion). I don't think
local businesses can afford to look away from a top performer like this.

Anecdotally, based on my experience working with over 250 local businesses
across the business spectrum, this doesn't reflect reality. A very small
percentage of my clients "actively" use "organic" Facebook, an even smaller
percentage use their ad platform (much higher usage of Google Ads). The ones
that do (buy FB ads), typically do so through local "media company" who tack
on their own fees, which in turn makes it a poor investment. I can count on
one hand (out of hundreds) the number of our clients who effectively use
Facebook. In fact, in the last couple of years, the number of businesses
forgoing a "real website" and choosing Facebook (a common theme just a few
years ago) has basically disappeared.

~~~
paxys
It completely depends on the target demographic. For escape rooms, for example
(mentioned in the above post), everyone is going to look up reviews on
Facebook before buying tickets.

~~~
mdorazio
Not so sure that's true - most of the people I know look on Google/Maps for
reviews now rather than trusting FB (or Yelp). It's probably demographic and
market dependent.

------
mastazi
> it’s unclear why Mozilla is fine with Google’s data practices but not
> Facebook’s as the company did not immediately respond to a request for
> clarification.

I often wonder the same.

And also:

Why there is an official Facebook container[1] but not an official Google
container?[2]

Why a fresh install of Firefox sends multiple calls to Google, including
services that track users such as Analytics?[3]

[1] [https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/06/04/firefox-now-
availab...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/06/04/firefox-now-available-
with-enhanced-tracking-protection-by-default/)

[2] there is a third party Google container at least
[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-
contai...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-container/)

[3]
[https://twitter.com/jonathansampson/status/11658588961766604...](https://twitter.com/jonathansampson/status/1165858896176660480)

~~~
zecg
That's a
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)

~~~
colanderman
No, _tu quoque_ is when someone defends entity _A_ 's bad actions by saying
that entity _B_ also does bad things.

The GP is not trying to defend Facebook here. Their argument is that _Mozilla_
is not acting fully ethically, by seemingly treating Google specially.
Therefore _tu quoque_ does not apply. (Moreover, the argument is logically
sound.)

------
Hitton
In my opinion advertising browser on facebook is absolutely useless. How many
users do you think see an advert and install browser when they current one is
for all their intents and purposes same. Mozilla needs to aim at technical
people, who will install Firefox not only on their own devices, but also on
devices of their relatives (or in case of administrators on devices of their
users).

And only few technical people care about minuscule difference in performance
anymore, so they need to advertise what Google, their main competitor, doesn't
offer - privacy. Best way to advertise would be either tech news on articles
related to privacy issues and possibly tech influencers who can properly
explain privacy benefits.

Another way to strike favour with tech crowd would be eliminating bloat from
Firefox (e.g. Pocket, still no idea why they bought them, as an extension it
worked fine).

~~~
tracker1
Given the changes google is making...

"Google is breaking ad blocking in Chrome, try a browser that works for you."

~~~
Nextgrid
If you're talking about putting that in ads, then it becomes a chicken & egg
problem - people who care about ad blocking won't see your ad because they
already block them, people who don't won't care about Chrome breaking
something they don't use.

------
bhouston
Firefox's marketshare is pretty horrible - non-existence on mobile and very
small on desktop and shrinking at 10% a year. It is basically at Edge-levels
of adoption on desktop:

[https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-
share#monthly-2009...](https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-
share#monthly-200901-201910)

~~~
panpanna
Firefox on mobile is actually pretty good and more people should use it.

(At least on Android, on iOS it's just a skin on top of whatever engine apple
forces down their throats).

~~~
pkilgore
I started using Firefox Android a year ago and now I can't stand chrome and
all the Ads!

Ublock origin on Firefox mobile is a godsend.

~~~
bombledmonk
Add on dark reader and the mobile experience is dramatically better. It's
still a little clunky from a UI/UX standpoint, but still superior experience
overall.

~~~
vangelis
I'd describe the mobile UX as less optimized and more straightforward than
Chrome. Definitely easier to tweak your privacy settings as well.

------
rswail
um, did anyone else notice that Mozilla has _100_ people in their marketing
department?

What do they all do?

~~~
uitiosders
I was also shocked to read they spend between $20-100 million in advertising!

Which that much money, couldn’t they just use the majority of advertisement
budget to pay a team of great developers for decades?

~~~
kelnos
Sure, but what's the point, if no one uses your browser? Marketing is a
necessary evil.

~~~
cf141q5325
In this case, with Mozilla Corporation as well as the budget mainly coming
from google instead of user donations, you have a point. They have a financial
interest in higher user numbers. Your statement is however not universally
true. If you have a large enough userbase to finance development, or are an
open source project, as a non-profit growth is not something you need to spend
money on. That really only matters if you have a profit interest. Differently
put, you dont need everyone to use your software, it is enough that its
available for people who need it. With more growth you get a litany of new
problem with having to do something with the incoming money as a non profit.
That often means feature bloat, while, "keep it simple stupid" would have led
to a better solution. Not to mention adding features the new userbase
requests. In the worst case you end up with a completely different product
which for many of the old userbase and volunteers is just as bad as if the
project was canceled altogether.

All of this not to mention that, while it makes sense for Firefox, the thought
that my donation to develop Firefox ended up in some marketing budget irks me
deep down.

------
sebastianconcpt
_Mozilla’s marketing budget is between $20 million and $100 million, said
Kaykas-Wolff, adding that “it varies depending upon the different programs
we’re running.” Per Kantar, which doesn’t track spending on social channels,
Mozilla spent $8.2 million in 2018. The budget is split with 50% focused on
North America and 50% focused on the rest of the world.

Mozilla’s pivot away from Facebook followed the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Now, the majority of the company’s digital spending goes to Google properties
— Mozilla’s Firefox competes with Google’s Chrome — as a part of its digital
acquisition strategy. According to Netshare, as previously reported by
Digiday, Firefox’s market share is 9.3% of global monthly on desktop;
meanwhile, Google Chrome’s is 66%. Aside from Cambridge Analytica, it’s
unclear why Mozilla is fine with Google’s data practices but not Facebook’s as
the company did not immediately respond to a request for clarification. The
rest of the digital budget goes directly to publishers._

------
sk84life
Keyword that I like was PRIVACY

It's meaning is fading today too much.

------
0000011111
Fundamentally the platform (facebook, google, etc) the majority of folks use
to connect with be the best one to market products and services on.

The issue is that these platforms change over time and across generations.

In short, as firms, markets, and societies change so will effective marketing
strategies.

We can still bicker about whether or not FB has reached its high watermark. It
looks like it has for Firefox users though.

------
josefresco
Does Google allow politicians to lie on their advertising platform like
Facebook? Genuinely asking, as it's a stated policy of Facebook but I haven't
heard or seen analysis comparing Google's ad network. I realize this decision
by Mozilla was based on a previous Facebook _blunder_.

------
K0SM0S
I think Mozilla needs to re-think their whole marketing approach yesterday. A
few remarks:

\- 50% US / 50% "rest of the world"? Nah. There's little to no chance to make
a strong dent in the US, home of Chrome and Apple and Microsoft etc. Pivot to
99% "rest of the world" and switch to my other point entirely for the US.
There's much more need, reason and room for Mozilla to grow internationally.

\- forget about ad spending, whether Google or TV, it just doesn't suit
Mozilla's image, mission, product, nor customers. What we want is to attract
the core deciders, from a grassroot kinda move, which spreads to peers,
circles, and grows up, towards the corporate. What we want is the 'elite' or
'nerdy' segment even if we'll never call it that. The 1% that make a community
thrive because they're so quintessential to tech in general, locally in their
projects / cities / worlds. The few that are blessed with speech and some
social presence, aura, authority. The ones others follow and listen to for
'tech stuff'.

So move worldwide now, and spend almost exclusively on these people.
Influencers, media, awareness, image, mission — maybe even some communities
living on forums could become advocates. Coordinate locally through bigger
advocates to form an army of legions.

Maybe find a big thing, like "we'll be in space for humans day 1 to assist
expansion" — moon, mars, satellites, whatever rocks the boat for the next
decade (think really big, above yearly trends, give a face to a "superior"
company). (I'm a space geek, perhaps this is just my taste)

Working with people directly, podcasters and youtubers gitlabers and whatnot,
hordes of them, is a more tedious, longer approach, but as well a more long-
term and much more engaging way to reach people. The money paid in sponsorship
goes directly to 'building the world' (these people are evangelizers of
principles and values, they're teachers, they're coaches, they play a valuable
role in society), not some indirect major ad platform engrossing. It fuels
communities that become grateful, with good reason, for marketing money. It
becomes "clean" money by virtue of being used for something good.

\- Don't dictate the message, let your 'influencers' feedback your way to
browser supremacy, publicly so; make it a topic not a mandate — this is not
just a 'strategy', it's a " _why_ " materialized, a life path, a superior way
to accomplish the mission. It's immortality through the software we give now
and leave after us. Pivot to meet that, to meet your dearest users needs and
wants. That's how you beat the faceless Google Chrome, imho. By giving the
browser back to the people, by being a positive company not in some abstract
"PR-humanitarian" way (although that's good!) but in a more direct-to-user
way. By serving the worthy movements and people you find in this world.
Grassroots seeding. Think: _for a browser company, connecting people and stuff
is pretty much what we do. Let 's show the world how much good we can do when
there's a whole company behind that!_

It'll take 10 years. There's no "too late" — until someone else does it, but
that's also considered a win for Mozilla in that regard. By 2030, it can be
done. And by virtue of being a dominant OSS, it has a staying power far
greater than its rivals.

It's possible, Mozilla. This is just one rough draft, maybe not the one, but
just to say: reinvent that sh--.

