The cool thing about facebook’s highly targeted advertising is that it balances the ad market in favor of niche players vs. generalists, which also means they have a long long tail of millions of small buyers vs. a few huge ones who used to dominate traditional media.
Old marketing was carpetbombing, which meant only those with B-52 sized budgets could dominate. It was also deeply entwined with centralized high-volume distribution models, aligning the interests of big manufactures and big retailers.
Today’s marketing is precision bombing. You just need the right explosion in the right place. Likewise, internet distribution enables the economics of small manufacturers and small retailers (shopify/amz third-party).
Which is why big advertisers have done relatively poorly with internet ads. Their prior campaigns worked, not so much because they or the product were good, but because they could silence small competitors. Because retailers could only carry a limited amount of products they would favor the big mfgs who could provide bulk orders. Consumers just went for them because they had no other choice.
Today small player’s can advertise to narrow niches where rates are low. Likewise consumers can access products that better suit their specific needs/wants. What this means is that FB doesn’t really need or depend on big budget advertisers. Mark knows this.
Another reason that Internet ads don't completely supplant traditional mass marketing, is because a lot advertising is about creating a cultural consensus around a product. Beer is the classic example.
Corona wants to create the image that it's the beer for cool, relaxed dudes. We all know that there's nothing inherent to Corona that makes it the beer for cool, relaxed dudes. But through mass advertising they've created a widely shared cultural connotation for that brand. If I show up to a party with a six-pack of Corona, I'm projecting a clear message to everyone there that I'm a cool, relaxed dude. (Or at least style myself that way.) If I was going for sophisticated, adventure-lover I might show up with Dos Equis instead. And most everyone in America would understand.
For this type of marketing, hyper-targeted advertising defeats the purpose. You don't just want to reach the target customers. You want everyone in the broader culture to understand what your brand stands for. It's why mass reach advertising, like Super Bowl commercials or Times Square billboards command such hefty premiums. I watch a beer commercial at Super Bowl half time, and not only do I know that I've seen that commercial. but I know everybody else will too.
> If I show up to a party with a six-pack of Corona, I'm projecting a clear message to everyone there that I'm a cool, relaxed dude. (Or at least style myself that way.) If I was going for sophisticated, adventure-lover I might show up with Dos Equis instead. And most everyone in America would understand.
Beer is a bad example these days because microbrews have taken over and the consensus has become fractured: Moose Drool is big where I live, but it likely doesn't exist where you are. Buying a macro means you're out-of-touch, no matter what kinds of ads InBev is putting out for it these days.
I realize this is going way off topic but I’m seeing the opposite: I have dozens of $20+ beer bottles in the basement and occasionally like a little fresh IPA but by volume I drink way more Modelo or other lager. Doing anything because everybody else is means... something, showing up with a case of miller lite says you DGAF and the genuinely interesting people seem to notice.
> If I show up to a party with a six-pack of Corona, I'm projecting a clear message to everyone there that I'm a cool, relaxed dude. (Or at least style myself that way.) If I was going for sophisticated, adventure-lover I might show up with Dos Equis instead. And most everyone in America would understand.
On the contrary, most are going to see you as the guy who brought bad beer because he's susceptible to aspirational advertising.
I wonder if there's a regional component to it. This might be yet another one of those cases where trying to say anything about America as a thing is nonsense.
Unfortunately, this model invites a lot of the "fly-by-night" type of companies offering products that may or may not have been thoroughly tested, but they know their target market may be easily manipulated through professional looking ads (eg young/naive people or people who don't know the wealth of data they give to FB to allow precision targeting).
Another example: Allbirds. $90 for a shoe with the build quality of something $25 from the Target store brand, but since it has hip, minimalist adverts on instagram it's seen as a great product and very popular.
The main ad line seems to be how comfortable and the quality of the shoe, honestly the all natural point was news to me before you pointed it out to me, and I own the shoe. Two strikes for it though, given that they aren't the most comfortable shoe and as I mentioned above, the build quality was highly disappointing. I cannot stress enough how cheap this shoe appears in the flesh and on your foot, natural material or not.
Yea the main selling point of Allbirds is their sustainable approach to manufacturing shoes. I've never owned a pair, but from my friends that do have them, they often describe them as "like if your shoes were socks" - which I think is intentional. Maybe OP went in with the wrong expectations?
> Today’s marketing is precision bombing. You just need the right explosion in the right place. Likewise, the internet enables the economies of small manufacturers and small retailers (shopify/amz third-party).
It's direct mail and it's nothing new. It was annoying decades ago, it's even more annoying now, because it's better-targeted, to the point it's effectively surveillance. Carpet-bombing advertising is brand advertising: It's somewhat annoying, but it doesn't track you.
Direct mail is to FB ads what chariots are to a Ferrari. You can pay facebook to target any of 1.7 Billion people with 0 research on your end. You can automate a campaign for reach/effectiveness. Your budget can be whatever you want it to be. You can get instant feedback and adjust accordingly.
FB adds are expensive because people click on them. They click on them because they are useful. They are also minimally intrusive: just scroll past, no click to close, no have to watch, no site ruining banners.
I for one, actually like FB ads: they show things I may want or need, often with a discount or some other benefit.
Old marketing was carpetbombing, which meant only those with B-52 sized budgets could dominate. It was also deeply entwined with centralized high-volume distribution models, aligning the interests of big manufactures and big retailers.
Today’s marketing is precision bombing. You just need the right explosion in the right place. Likewise, internet distribution enables the economics of small manufacturers and small retailers (shopify/amz third-party).
Which is why big advertisers have done relatively poorly with internet ads. Their prior campaigns worked, not so much because they or the product were good, but because they could silence small competitors. Because retailers could only carry a limited amount of products they would favor the big mfgs who could provide bulk orders. Consumers just went for them because they had no other choice.
Today small player’s can advertise to narrow niches where rates are low. Likewise consumers can access products that better suit their specific needs/wants. What this means is that FB doesn’t really need or depend on big budget advertisers. Mark knows this.