This is sort of what I'm thinking. Everyone is claiming Facebook ads don't work because they're improperly targeted, people don't look at them, people don't browse Facebook with "intent," etc. This is a the supposed "failure" of advertising on Facebook.
But what about traditional ads, say a television commercial or a radio ad? Aren't they more expensive, with a more limited and less targeted audience? Isn't the intent to purchase missing there as well? Why is it the case that Facebook advertising is a failure when it seems that it should be at least as (or more) effective than traditional advertising?
There are many kinds of ads - those who tries to sell you something, and those who tries to establish "branding".
The first type is largely ignored by the majority of users, and the 2nd type, can't be ignored, even if the user tries to ignore it (those using adblock notwithstanding, but they are a minority).
The branding type of ads are the most effective, and are the type of ads that would make or break facebook.
Google, on the other hand, seems to excel at the first type - and it makes sense, because when people search, they ususally want to find some product/service, and those ads gets to them at the right time.
If the ads on facebook took over your screen for 5 minutes and forced you to watch them then, yes, it'd be more like traditional media ads. But people have gotten pretty good at just ignoring their sidebars.
But what about traditional ads, say a television commercial or a radio ad? Aren't they more expensive, with a more limited and less targeted audience? Isn't the intent to purchase missing there as well? Why is it the case that Facebook advertising is a failure when it seems that it should be at least as (or more) effective than traditional advertising?
Am I missing something?