He points out some of the terribly targeted ads that Facebook pushes on users. I think this is a huge issue that's not discussed enough.
Facebook has all the data but no real targeting. This stems from two core issues: 1) they don't seem to use their immense datasets as effectively as Google does and most importantly 2) they rely on the advertisers to target their ads. Advertisers, even when handed the best demographic tools in the world, seem to get it horrifically wrong. This means people are exposed to bad advertising and learn to ignore it. This also means that advertisers will complain that Facebook doesn't give them the bang for the buck that they're after. Facebook don't mind however -- they still get their revenue.
In the long run Facebook need to work out how to target ads. The longer they leave these horrible ads in place the more desensitized their userbase will become. They're poisoning their revenue stream by allowing any and all ads through, regardless of quality or accuracy in the target market.
One of the major problems with FB ad targeting is that a lot of it is keyword-driven without regard for context.
If I'm on Google searching for a product or service, the context is very likely "I want one of these" or "I'm curious about this", so displaying ads strictly by keyword works fairly well.
But if I mention something on Facebook, it's as likely to be negative as positive. If I've just said something critical about a particular ideology, an ad for "date [ideology] singles" is as you say "horrifically wrong" (especially since I'm happily married.)
Another contextual issue FB gets wrong is timing. Often I'm mentioning something I already own or something I've just completed. Telling me about a restaurant right after dinner, or tax software right after I finish my taxes, is not likely to be relevant to me (whereas if I type "restaurant" or "taxes" into Google it almost definitely is.)
Sometimes it comes down to advertiser stupidity (forgetting to check if I'm married, for example.) But the fundamental problem is that judging intent is a hard problem for a computer. It's easy to write a filter that figures out what I'm interested in when I type a query into Google; it's hard to write one for a status update I type into Facebook.
Facebook advertising isn't keyword driven, it's interest driven. AFAIK Facebook doesn't parse your status updates to find keywords -- they look at what you have Liked.
They certainly do look for keywords in statuses (though I don't know if they use them for advertising). At one point they grouped statuses by subject ("Alice and Bob both mentioned Christmas"), and it suggests groups/pages based on your statuses (I mentioned reading something in French in a status, and it suggested I liked "French language").
Yeah I was referring to advertising purposes. Even if they did use keywords in statuses for advertising I would imagine the the weight of those keywords verses the weight of a liked object would be significantly lower since the relevancy would be low.
Based on all the anecdotes floating around, this one included, I wonder if part of the problem is that the demographic groups advertisers (that use Facebook) really seem to want to target are the most resistant to the ads. This would then lead advertisers to broaden their targeting to the point where Facebook's enormous trove of data is basically useless.
Who cares if your ad is being shown to the exact 50,000 people on Facebook who are a perfect fit for your product if nearly all of them refuse to click on it? So you broaden your demographic selections, the ad goes out to 500,000 people now, but now your product has no relevance for the vast majority of the people seeing it.
Based off the ads the author cites in the article the issue is the lack of data, not poor targeting by advertisers. For example the author wouldn't see the "Boyfriend Wanted" ad if he listed himself as married in his Facebook profile (Facebook aggressively forbids dating ads targeted towards people who list themselves as married or in a relationship).
All online advertising platforms rely on advertisers to target their ads. If this really is the issue, which I doubt, it applies to the entire advertising industry not just Facebook.
I can tell you my profile is full of information on me yet looking at the ads I see on Facebook right now: a) "Join the Army as a Truck Mechanic" (university graduate in IT...) b) "Study Marine Biology" c) "Cheap baby strollers" d) "Learn how to make money trading on the Forex market".
These are just the most egregious examples -- most others are just for products and services I'm not particularly interested in.
If it can't accurately target ads for me then I fear greatly for Facebook's business model...
[If you want to see what information they have to target ads, feel free to check out http://www.facebook.com/smerity -- next to all my details are public as I assume if it's on Facebook it's public]
This doesn't have to be a case of poor targeting by FB; it could be broadcast targeting by the advertiser who isn't as selective as we would expect.
And for brand awareness advertising, I could see that it might be worth it, depending upon the cost. I have no intention of using eHarmony (happily married here), but I'm aware of them due to both online and offline advertising. If a coworker asks me about online dating, I'm sure I'll remember eHarmony. That brand awareness has obvious value to advertisers, and if the cost is in line with their budget, it explains the "mis-targeted" ads.
> He points out some of the terribly targeted ads that Facebook pushes on users..
So true.. Why don't I get ads like this:
"It's almost lunch time, the weather is great and we kind-of know where you are. Here are 3 lunch places in the area with outdoor seating and a few available tables."
Instead I get mostly dating sites and google-translated ads to "make money fast"
What you see as poorly targeted ads are those where the advertiser does a poor job, not Facebook. The tools are there and the most successful advertisers use them.
I believe we're arguing the same point. Advertisers are the ones who do the targeting and even with the tools Facebook provides, they make terrible targeting decisions.
It doesn't matter if good advertisers use it properly, the majority do not. If Facebook don't prevent these poorly targeted ads then they can't guarantee any level of targeting at all on their site. This means that users are desensitized to the ads shown there, decreasing their value as an adspace.
Facebook has all the data but no real targeting. This stems from two core issues: 1) they don't seem to use their immense datasets as effectively as Google does and most importantly 2) they rely on the advertisers to target their ads. Advertisers, even when handed the best demographic tools in the world, seem to get it horrifically wrong. This means people are exposed to bad advertising and learn to ignore it. This also means that advertisers will complain that Facebook doesn't give them the bang for the buck that they're after. Facebook don't mind however -- they still get their revenue.
In the long run Facebook need to work out how to target ads. The longer they leave these horrible ads in place the more desensitized their userbase will become. They're poisoning their revenue stream by allowing any and all ads through, regardless of quality or accuracy in the target market.