January 26, 2015
I read a very interesting item on a UK information service. The article is “People Actually Confuse Facebook and the Internet in Some Places.” Here’s the point I highlighted with orange this fine morning:
Ex-Googler, Facebook COO and mouthpiece Sheryl Sandberg claimed this week that some users (sorry, people) actually think that Mark Zuckerberg’s free-content ad network is the Internet.
I filed an item about Eric Schmidt’s widely publicized prognostication just a day or two before. Here’s a representative article: “Eric Schmidt’s Quite Right The Internet Will Disappear; All Technologies Do As They Mature.”
Google wants the disappearing Internet to be into Google. If Facebook acts out the suggestion that Facebook becomes the Internet, Google will not be happy.
The battle, therefore, is less about disappearing technology than a return to the good old days when a telephone meant Bell. Just cross out Bell, and slot in a nifty company like Facebook or Google.
Is this disappearance or a de facto, ubiquitous monopoly?
Stephen E Arnold, January 26, 2015
December 13, 2014
I am not too keen on Facebook. I get odd ball friend requests to our automated Beyond Search account which baffles me. Who wants to be friends with a script.
Nevertheless, I read “Facebook Dumps Microsoft Web Search Results.” The Facebookers have to get control of information access to their content. Note I said “their”, not your content, gentle reader.
The write up, which is a foundation, asserts:
Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has flagged search as one of the company’s key growth initiatives, noting in July that there were more than 1 billion search queries occurring on Facebook every day and hinting that the vast amount of information that users share within Facebook could eventually replace the need to search the Web for answers to certain questions.
Yep, the Googlers at Facebook know there is money in them thar search results.
Debing, bada, gone.
Stephen E Arnold, December 13, 2014
December 10, 2014
I am not sure if the information in “Facebook Video Is Driving YouTube Off Facebook” is spot on. Counts of user behavior without the actual log files are subject to interpretation. But the main point is darned suggestive. Facebook video may be cutting into uploads to YouTube.com. Now the Googlers are trying to make YouTube into a bigger money spinner. If Facebook pushes into video, advertisers are going to want to put their messages in front of Facebook viewers of hot videos. Bad news for Google.
The passage from the article I noted was:
It is evidence of a dramatic shift in power: Until recently Facebook was not even considered a destination for video. Page owners simply shared their YouTube videos on Facebook, and that was that.
My view is that Google struggles to convert social into a service that can compete with Facebook. If Facebook figures out how to play nice with China, the GOOG has a yellow alert flashing. Is the answer in “How Google Works”?
Stephen E Arnold, December 10, 2014
August 31, 2014
Facebook has done little public facing work on search. Behind the scenes, Facebookers and Xooglers have been beavering away. A bit of public information surfaced in “Zuckerberg On Search — Facebook Has More Content Than Google.” Does Facebook have a trillion pieces of content. Is that more content than Google has? Nah. But it is the thought that counts:
Here’s the quote I highlighted:
What would it ultimately mean if Facebook’s search efforts are effective–and if Facebook allowed universal use of a post search tool that really worked? It’s dizzying, really. As Zuckerberg said early this year on an earnings call: “There are more than a trillion status updates and unstructured text posts and photos and pieces of content that people have shared over the past 10 years.” Then the Facebook CEO put that figure into context: “a trillion pieces of content is more than the index in any web search engine.” You know what “any web search engine” spells? That’s a funny way of spelling Google.
With Amazon nosing into ads and Facebook contemplating more public search functionality, will Google be able to respond in a manner that keeps its revenues flowing and projects like Loon flying? I wonder what the Arnold name surfer thinks about Facebook? Maybe it is a place to post musings about failed youth coaching?
Stephen E Arnold, August 31, 2014
July 24, 2014
I enjoyed “Facebook Now Has 1.32 Billion Users, with 30 Percent Only Using It on Their Mobile—and the Average American Spends 40 minutes a Day on the Site.” Why read anything except the headline?
Tucked into this sensational write up was this gem:
The number of people who log in at least once a day on mobile devices was 654 million on average in June, up 14 percent from a year earlier.
The reason I highlighted this item is that it focuses on the problem Facebook poses to Google. Not only do hundreds of millions of people use Facebook on a notebook or desktop computer, Facebook’s mobile cohort is growing.
Facebook users willingly create content for Facebook. Facebook users willingly provide information to Facebook. Facebook captures implicit data from user behaviors.
Advertisers like this situation.
If Facebook keeps expanding its mobile advertising paw print, the Google will have to find a way to counter or take some steps that might be unpalatable to some folks.
In short, the headline tells a story, but the pressure on Google is not front and center where it should be. And search? Who thinks about that for either Facebook or Google? (My tiny voice says, “I do.”)
Stephen E Arnold, July 24, 2014
March 27, 2014
I read “STUDY: Facebook’s Role In Pew Research Center’s ‘State Of The News Media 2014’/” The source is a research project from Pew Research Center. The sample, well, who knows? The finding fascinating, particularly to advertisers, news professionals, and old people like me sitting around the cast iron stove in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky.
Here it is:
30 percent of the sample get their [sic] news from Facebook.
The survey seems to have been completed in mid 2013, which may be important in the wake of Facebook’s interest in virtual reality.
The write up highlights six “Facebook-related findings.” I don’t want to spoil your fun by listing the listicle of the six factoids. I want to point out three of these insights:
- Three out of every 10 US adults get “some news while on Facebook.”
- The news is “shared by friends.”
- The demographics of the Facebook news consumers “were high earners and college educated.”
My thought is that social news is not something a traditional newspaper like my former employer the Courier Journal & Louisville Times considers a native habitat. The idea that social news is news is fascinating. With tools to generate disinformation, misinformation, and reformation, figuring out what’s accurate may be difficult for a Facebooker.
I assume that a Walter Cronkite of social media news will emerge. Advertisers are likely to sniff the edges of the Pew information and conclude, “Opportunity.” Experiencing Facebook as news is a facet of the service that has the potential to be disruptive. Which traditional network will run the Facebook news hour? Will Thomson Reuters and the BBC add a Facebook stream? Opportunities abound.
Stephen E Arnold, March 27, 2014
March 24, 2014
Facebook is a network for people to communicate and connect. Forbes.com’s article, “The Approaching Demise Of Organic Reach In Facebook” says that organic connections for brands. are dropping faster than page counts on Justin Bieber’s fan page. The information comes from Social@Oglivy study. Facebook’s response is that will go to zero in the future.
“The free ride for brands on Facebook is coming to an end, and Mark Zuckerberg’s network should now be moved into the ‘paid channel’ in the marketing budget. The end game here is that a message posted on a brand page will not be shown to anyone unless it gathers a notable number of likes from a user’s friends. If their friends like a post, if there is a visible adoption of the post by the community, only then the post has earned the right to be shown organically.”
Brands will have to fork over money to breathe life into a post and it means that they have will have to rethink their Facebook marketing strategies. Facebook is using basic economics to create a scarcity. Brands will have to pay more, but over time they will stop. It is all about the almighty dollar sign for Facebook. What happened to the people?
March 20, 2014
The article on Advertising Age titled Brands’ Organic Facebook Reach Has Crashed Since October: Study begins with a dire end-of-days of free reach on Facebook pronouncement. The data is from Social@Ogilvy, which discovered a decline from about 12% to just over 6% among 106 country-level brand pages. This drop is from October to February. The reason seems to be that users are getting too much content thrown at them, too much to possibly consume. The article explains,
“Increasingly Facebook is saying that you should assume a day will come when the organic reach is zero,” he said. In the short term, Mr. Manson expects to see the drop in organic reach to drive a bit more Facebook ad spending. In the longer term, he expects to see increased investment in social channels like Twitter, Facebook-owned Instagram and WeChat and for brands to effectively hedge their bets instead of being centrally focused on Facebook.”
Facebook, unsurprisingly, is putting money first, and assuming a position that looks more like a shrug than anything else. They have urged marketers to stop seeing organic reach as a bonus rather than part of what they are buying when they purchase ads on the social networking site. It remains to be seen whether marketers are buying this argument.
Chelsea Kerwin, March 20, 2014
March 18, 2014
A recent partner audit by Facebook prompted the removal of business intelligence firm Kontagent from the Facebook Mobile Measurement Program (MMP). A post at the Kontagent Kaleidoscope blog from the company’s CEO, “An Update on our Relationship with Facebook, How We Store Data,” addresses the issue head-on. Andy Yang admits his company made a mistake, but assures us that absolutely no data breaches resulted from the misstep. Furthermore, though the company is not currently part of the MMP, it is still working with Facebook in other areas.
Yang details what precipitated his company’s removal from the program. They did violate Facebook’s policy on how long they could store data, but note that the slip-up occurred as they were working to exceed Facebook’s requirements on privacy and security. Still, they say, the mistake was theirs, they are learning from it, and they hope to earn the chance to rejoin the program. See the post for more on their security measures and on what transpired with Facebook. Yang summarizes:
“In short, Kontagent created an encryption policy that we designed to completely protect user privacy while addressing Facebook’s policy in one elegant solution. In hindsight, while our intentions were good, we overthought the solution when a more basic approach would have better met Facebook’s requirements.
“I completely respect the audits that Facebook conducts to ensure their partners are properly compliant. We will address each of the issues noted in Facebook’s audit despite not being a member of the MMP.”
After its launch in 2007, Kontagent cut their data analysis teeth on SaaS analytics for key social game developers. Now, leading brands in a variety of fields depend upon their expertise. Based in San Francisco, Kontagent also maintains offices in Toronto, London, Seoul, and Tokyo.
Cynthia Murrell, March 18, 2014
March 16, 2014
The article titled This $US600,000 Facebook Ad Disaster Is A Warning Small Business Owners on Business Insider Australia tells the story of Kapur Brar, CEO of small business Fetopolis. Fetopolis is a compendium of online fashion magazines with a healthy online following. Until recently, Brar relied heavily on marketing through Facebook, spending $100,000 a day. The article explains why Brar has “fallen out of love with Facebook,”
“He discovered…that his Facebook fanbase was becoming polluted with thousands of fake likes from bogus accounts. He can no longer tell the difference between his real fans and the fake ones. Many appear fake because the users have so few friends, are based in developing countries, or have generic profile pictures. At one point, he had a budget of more than $US600,000 for Facebook ad campaigns, he tells us. Now he believes those ads were a waste of time.”
Strangely, this story isn’t really being told, in spite of Facebook having 25 million small businesses using Facebook for marketing at varying levels of sophistication.
Did the purchase of WhatsApp cause this interesting story to slip into oblivion? The article offers some defense of Facebook- the majority of customers are happy, the payment of Brar’s bill is disputed, and yet it is also true that Facebook does not allow for third party “click audits,” which is standard practice.
Chelsea Kerwin, March 16, 2014