Our ancestors invented the script for a reason and its not going anywhere.
Despite agreeing with the conclusion, I don't really think this is a reasonable statement. Our ancestors domesticated horses for a reason, that doesn't mean new technologies that weren't available then can't entirely supplant that need.
It's certainly Facebooks fault for giving out wrong statistics, but I also feel like the advertising industry have failed to do extremely basic research.
...until I hit an autoplaying video somewhere, but I usually just learn to avoid sites that do that.
Ad spends are measured and results are tracked.
The value of those ads is a function of how far the needle is moved.
It's only when the needle can only be loosely measured can this go awry. For example, in a brand awareness campaign, it's sometimes hard to measure effect.
If FB was reporting '80% viewed' when it was '20%' then it's basically fraud.
What some guy says at a conference about 'the future of ads' is almost irrelevant, people are saying things all the time, and even if companies were to allocated more budget there ... they should see the results for themselves and adjust.
The kind of big business campaign just blowing money on branding is probably getting an even worse return on TV.
If you're launching a big film like Avengers, a 25 second view is a like a 'soft lead' and you can correlate that to how many tickets you're going to sell.
Brand awareness is much more intangible, but they are in the end real things.
But yes, the softer metrics are massively abused by agencies, and in-house marketing teams trying to justify spend, hires etc..
Weirdly, so much of the 'conversion' stuff is utter crap, like ads for 'photos of Jet Fighters' or 'actresses with and without makeup' where they jam 40 ads on the screen each time. It's this kind of crap that really ruins the internet.
Facebook was hardly the first player in the video game, with YouTube, Hulu and a few other big brands relying on this model exclusively.
I know why it isn't working: human hands are made for interacting with things. While sitting in front of a TV, we humans tend to believe what we're told, and we're typically prone, not on guard. Who wants to hold an ad in their hands? Who doesn't feel burned when a video ad interrupts their flow of their digital (fingeratively) pleasure trail?
Now imagine what kind of influence can be had over another when they are in a fully immersive digital (binary) experience. Its like handing over your entire limbic system to the machine.
Malevolent influence at scale is remarkably accepted by humans, it is our past. I hope our future moves towards respecting the sovereignty of individual human consciousness.
Laws, attitudes, and behaviors need to change. We all who have been Branded have had a piece of our identity conformed to serve the ambition of another. I think the average American brain walking through the grocery store is analogous to a chairlift pole covered in stickers, a wall covered in layers of gum. Any exactly how do you clean away an Impression?
I'm a recovering internet marketer. I've felt lousy for a long time for having been so cavalier with influence. I've been trying to see what better looks like for a long time. What do you think better looks like? Feels like?
Anyone else know what I'm referring to here? You see an image someone shared, but it's a video, so you click it, and it's still a still image, because page admins were trying to game the system.
Some differences are that VW plead guilty and paid a 2.8B $ fine, the CEO resigned, executives have been facing criminal charges, and a slew of international cases are still outstanding. Another difference is that VW’s deceit had direct human health consequences.
> Ad buying agency Publicis Media was told by Facebook that the earlier counting method likely overestimated average time spent watching videos by between 60% and 80%, according to a late August letter Publicis Media sent to clients that was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
From the FB post (https://www.facebook.com/business/news/facebook-video-metric...):
> The metric should have reflected the total time spent watching a video divided by the total number of people who played the video. But it didn’t – it reflected the total time spent watching a video divided by only the number of “views” of a video [...].
How does this work?
View time is probably highly heavily skewed towards plays that last less than 3 seconds. (also because facebook autoplays videos without any pause time)
If 60% of viewers play the video for 0-3 seconds, and only 40% view the rest of the video, you're grossly overstation the average view time.
Removing users with less than 3 seconds seems 100% intentional (to avoid exposing the fact that most viewers are not really viewers, they immediately dismiss the video), not an error.
In other words, fb measures were correct for "people watching videos for 3 seconds or more". But they didn't:
1. Qualify their numbers with that.
2. Disclose how many people were NOT watching videos.
Without these two critical details, the numbers represented "all Facebook users".
This opinion is hard to swallow. This is not . at . all true. If the "information" you're trying to convey is colors and bokeh, sure...
In that context, this comment is absolutely spot on - we're not talking about a tutorial video showing how to replace the headers on your BMW. We're talking about a video with a talking head that reads a "story" to you. "Can you believe what the president did today?" (cue outrage).
"It commands so much more information in a much quicker period," is a nice way of saying "video distracts people much more effectively than text."
Video is better for learning? I've participated in many online courses and I have noticed consistently that for a lecturer to convey the amount of information that could be obtained in 1 hour of reading they would need at least 3 hours of lecturing.
The only reason I listen to lectures in addition to reading is for metadata. IE, what do they emphasize. And typically I need to do this at 2x speed or else I fall asleep.
Learning needs to be data transfer at the speed with which your brain learns, which isn't going to be as fast as it can process data through an existing conception of the world.
For 1 if I want information I don't need logos/animations, I don't need "hello fellow YouTubers", etc.
Event the "repair car" example. Suppose need to make some action to repair a vacuum pump. Unless I just don't know where it is in the engine bay (or some other location/orientation information) what value is looking at anything?
If an informational video doesn’t have a transcript or a way of speeding it up I’m not interested. At work we have a subscription to Lynda.com and while the content is okay, the only way the videos are bearable is to watch them at 2x speed.
Videos are good for ads. And videos are interesting I guess if you actually CARE about the guy who talks in it. For information and learning: text.
I guess it’s the same as most pop businesses books: there’s about a blog post’s worth of material, padded out with case studies, anecdotes and other fluff to reach the page count.
I have the opposite for news for example. Essentially, whenever people read text out loud which I could have read myself, I typically prefer reading. Moreso because I can skim through text, and move back and forth to make connections, re-read a part after a new insight or to check if I'd remember it clearly, with video this is quite difficult and tiresome.
Although I do enjoy audio/video played at high speeds, it's much more effortless to listen to or watch double speed video than it is to speed-read. Particularly because most written text is quite information dense and not meant to be sped through, whereas most video is more conversational, less dense, and can be sped up to a point where you can take in a lot of information in an easygoing manner in a short time.
Then there's a unique section of high-quality production material. Here I would say, video can beat most formats, it's really efficient and makes a long-time impression. For example, a $5m documentary with video material for every anecdote, beautiful animated graphs to illustrate every metaphor, every causal-mechanism explored etc, can beat 100 pages of dry text. But it requires tons of effort and resources. On the other end of the spectrum is simple video material you see on television (point camera at talking heads), which is really inefficient (safe for being able to speed it up, but even then... whenever people are reading out loud news or an opinion, I'd rather just read it myself then watch someone do it for me.) But this format is really cheap to produce, it's just a camera and talking heads, but inefficient, I dislike it myself.
- Martin Mull (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/11/08/writing-about-music...)
Secondly, maybe dance has something to say about architecture. Have some imagination. Judging how others appreciate just makes you look ignorant. This is not a new theme to art criticism.
- find content within a video is difficult (I'd rather search text)
- you're at the mercy of the presenter's pace (you can adjust speed, but that's only part of the story)
- sometimes listening isn't an option
- sometimes presenters rely too much on visuals, so you have to watch as well
- video can't be as easily edited as text, so most people just put subtitles to point out errors (this doesn't help if you're not watching)
- less easy to link to additional information than text
In general, unless someone is demonstrating a step-by-step, graphical process, I prefer text.
For letting me know what Trump tweeted yesterday, I don't need a five minute video with commentary. Even for protests and marches, a few pictures and a paragraph will pretty much do. Most news I'm happy to just read about.
I used to think so too. Then I saw how my child learns stuff with far greater command of underlying concepts and connections through video and realized it's probably just a function of how I learned to learn or am used to growing up without essentially videos on any topic available on demand.
I have observed that the learning my child acquires through video is actually not "book learning" (the term exists for a reason) but much more nuanced, vicarious and realistic in a way text simply isn't. If fact, my child's goto for understanding something "let us search for a video on YouTube that will teach us how to do X". From an information theory standpoint this also makes sense.
So let's allow for the possibility that our opinions are simply shaped by our experiences of growing up without readily accessible video and reality for our children may be different.
I think text is better when you already know what you're looking for and video is better when you are still trying to develop an intuition for the subject.
Like everything in life, YMMV, and everyone learns differently.
Its simply the same stuff you would put in an article communicated at a fraction of the speed with less editing for brevity and prose because it's much harder to reorder video or reshoot instead of swapping a few words.
It is probably worthwhile primarily because it makes a stronger emotional connection which is to say its a more effective vehicle to deceive and manipulate you.
If you think videos are better for learning value obtained per minute I would be interested in reading the proof and can certainly keep an open mind but I'm not inclined to value an anecdote.
I mean the guy is Facebook VP for Europe and probably knows very well that business reports (for example) are not digested "in a quicker way" if you make a 3 hour video out of them.
I guess it shows that my perception on the industry is still very much influenced by stereotypes; no matter how much I would like to think that I'm immune to that.
It depends on the context, the people creating the content and the people consuming the content. Sometimes video is better, sometimes text is better. It just depends.
For learning something related to coding, I far prefer text to video, although that may be partly because it is easier to copy and paste into an editor so I can mess with it myself.
Does that mean video is more effective than text?? Depends on your agency I guess, or maybe depends on the campaign.
I have had direct conversations with small market clients. The client hired a new agency, and that agency hired us to shoot the spots. The agency came up with a decent small market campaign. The next time it came time to shoot the next series of spots, the client mentioned the spike in business from the ads after they started airing. Yes, the agency also had radio and online campaign, but it was the TV ads that resulted in the spike in calls. ROI must be pretty good. In a single day shoot, we can shoot 6 spots for this client. They then air 1 spot per month.
I'd imagine the smaller market clients can see a significant ROI vs mega-clients shooting brand awareness campaigns. If you've ever seen Mad Men and how they put agencies on annual retainers, then you'll get what I mean. The Madison Avenue crowd probably have tons of research, but that's so far out of my circles of interest.
Online banner advertising is often similar , with the major difference that there is a limited 24 hours in a day in which the TV budget gets allocated, while there are vastly more publishers on the web.
How does Facebook measure the success of video viewership? From my experience, Facebook forces you to view the whole ad. This contrasts with YouTube: You are forced to watch for a few seconds and can opt-out later.
This gives an important signal: The viewer was not interested and thus bailed out. He didn't watch the whole video. This can't happen in Facebook: You are forced to watch the whole video-ad if you want to carry on watching your original video.
Another complaint: Auto-Play. If I'm watching a video, Facebook will auto-jump to another video in a ridiculously short-amount of time. There is not opt-out of this behavior. You are forced to watch the next video; and potentially the next ad.
Again, this contrasts with YouTube: Auto-Play is opt-in. The time before the player jumps to the next video is significantly longer. The time before the player jump in Facebook is so short that I almost always fail to prevent it.
So dark-patterned Facebook these days. It is really annoying, scary and unfriendly.
How bad of a reading disorder do you have to have to think you can extract information more efficiently from video than text?
I can use adblock on my computer, but it's more difficult on the phone (DNS66, etc) so less likely I will have adblocking on the phone.
As publishers moved more to video to capitalize on video plays, so did ads come with them, thus video became less appealing for me.
That's how it played out for me the past 2 years, and probably you too.
it is exactly the same process as a desktop. First install a decent browser (not the crap one shipped by the OEM), for example, firefox for Android. Then install your favorite adblocker extensions (which should be uBlock Origin). Done. No step 3!
"Who cares how long people watch videos on facebook? News organizations...thinking video was where the ad money was."
Ben Bradford (reporting). [...] Just months after he was hired, Gonzales was let go [as a video producer for Mic].
Gabe. And we started seeing the same happen everywere. Any you know I think at that point you realize the jig is up, right?
: [Marketplace Business: A look back at the "pivot to video" after a new lawsuit alleges Facebook misled about video viewership](https://www.marketplace.org/2018/10/18/economy/facebook-pivo...)
If you're making massive, sweeping changes to the structure of your business and product offering based on Facebook PR, you deserve to go out of business.
What FB said could have even been true and these organizations could have staffed up on all video only to later become victims of an algorithm change or some arbitrary FB rule in the future.
Across the breadth range of companies built on advertising from coca cola to chanel as far as I can see they don't use internet ads. These companies have not gone away. Google, Facebook, ebay etc etc all have poster ads in my town. I guess targeted internet ads didn't work for their purposes.
What is a con is telling advertisers that I watched something for 5 minutes, when in fact I watched for 5 seconds. Imagine if you were an advertiser who paid for a product placement in videos. Your campaign was a total waste of time.
"Coca-Cola has just hired its first chief digital marketing officer" (2016) https://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/12/12/coca-cola-has-just-h...
"Chanel has been investing in other areas of digital, boasting more display and video ad impressions in the past year than almost any other brand in the study." https://www.l2inc.com/daily-insights/chanel-flaunts-digital-...
Why is a Rolex "worth" $10-20k? Why is an Apple product priced at 2x the price of an equivalent? In large, because they spend millions every year advertising their brand - with no measurable conversion mechanism. In my opinion, this is why online advertising is so obnoxious - it's mostly low effort performance advertising which tends to be much less enjoyable from an aesthetic level.
FB and much of the current social marketing scene in general have been handing off best practices that feel highly questionable at best.
Why did you choose to include that bug into your code?
Srsly, people don't choose to make mistakes (but sometimes they choose to do cover up).
Also, there is no such things as "Facebook". Facebook didn't choose, someone inside Facebook either make mistake, or deliberate decision. "Facebook" is not single entity with single agenda and plan, but complex company, with different people optimizing for different things (i.e. security/privacy and growth and ads). There is shared high-level vision, but not every decision is made at single place.
You say it was a mistake, at the same time you give many reasons why it likely wasn't a mistake: many people vet the public-facing communications of such a large company.
As a bonus, it pulls money away from YouTube.
You're understating the monopolistic power that Facebook's network effects have produced in the online content space.
It's only recently that third party analytics companies came into the space with an incentive and enough data to make meaningful market-wide forecasts.
Your comment is still very valid for small clients on self-serve systems, though.
> This error should not stand in the way of our ultimate goal, which is to do what’s in the best interest of our partners and their business growth.
I don’t see how Facebook benefited from the data being wrong. Facebook wins by having publishers to produce formats and content that users actually want to see.
Vids from friends?
That seems to be a different story.
Meanwhile, Facebook is getting it's own (news) publishing operation off the ground. Which could probably do with having less competitors.
That could be viewed in a rather specific light. "Operating in Bad Faith" might be the nicest way to put it? ;)