Why The Facebook Targeted Advertising System Is Broken
I’ve been following Facebook’s targeted advertising platforms since they were launched. Now that they’ve been running for a while, I have to ask: are the targeted advertising systems Facebook offers to advertisers fundamentally broken? I think they might be. Here’s my top three reasons why:
- The targeting doesn’t work. The ads I see showing up in my feed aren’t being targeted to anything I’m interested in. In fact, they’re often advertising things I’m actively not interested in.
- Flagship advertising partners aren’t using it. I signed up to be a “fan” of some of the flagship advertisers that Facebook shouted about when it launched its ad platforms. I’ve not received any contacts from any of these companies. Presumably, these organisations don’t see any value in Facebook ads.
- Social networking sites aren’t good environments for ads. There are more interesting things to click on in my feed than the ads. When I’m on Facebook, I’m never looking to buy stuff. When I’m on Google, I sometimes am. In other words, search is a great environment for ads, whereas social networking just isn’t.
So, the bottom line is: Facebook ads aren’t really targeted; and even if they were, I wouldn’t be interested in clicking on them. Facebook really needs to re-think its advertising plans if it wants to be “the next Google” i.e. the next $100B Internet company…
Ajay Mishra wrote:
I agree with you on the ad part..
But I am not sure if any spcial netwroking site could/should compete with a search engine - cum publishing giant cum - all thing internet - such as google.
My logic goes as under:
Google is a pimp -> that makes us traverse the journey from Intent to Content; making money while you and I - Search, Scan –> Click.
But networking sites –> driven my this community thing –> are by definition, bounded by a shared intent. They only have content.
Whats common between Google and these sites: is only the process –>
Only Search –> Scan -> Click..
The intent - in the case of Social networking sites ( file sharing or voyeurism) is clear from the onset. Not so transparent in the case of Google.. or is it??
How much value add does a *tent* with a common - intent provide?? As opposed to the shrink -> who figures out both the intent (behind the search) and the content ( by the publishers)?
Posted 30 Dec 2007 at 11:22 pm ¶
Ajay Mishra wrote:
BTW: All of my rants - conform your posts. But I wonder, why and what makes everyone gaga over these so called Social Networking sites??
Nobody goes there anymore. Its too crowded out there. — Yogi berra
PS: Yogi Berra said “he never said half the things people said he did” … I am wondering if the same applies to some of the hyped promises..
Posted 30 Dec 2007 at 11:27 pm ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
I’ve been seeing Facebook ads but I haven’t clicked on any - I wonder, since Facebook attracts a specific type of person, graduates etc., are these people clicking any ads at all in Facebook?
http://www.smvgroup.com/news_popup_flash.asp?pr=1643
Study above showed that even on the wider Internet, only 6% of total surfers are ‘heavy clickers’ - what would this type of analysis do for the Facebook business model?
Posted 13 Feb 2008 at 9:23 pm ¶
simon wrote:
I’m pretty sure that current Facebook ad platforms are not working anything close to what Facebook folks had been hoping for. I hear that they may shortly be announcing a new advertising platform. For sure, they need to - the current one is not going to change the world.
I think many people believe that “social search” is potentially powerful. Why? The most powerful recommendation to buy a product is when a trusted friend tells you that a product is great. But, the problem is - who uses Facebook for search? Still, there are lots of smart people at Facebook - they have a few more shots on goal to figure it out. But, Google is interested in social search too. Not going to be easy to “out-search” Google.
Bottom line: Facebook probably needs to move beyond social networking if they want to get value from social search.
Posted 13 Feb 2008 at 9:57 pm ¶