HN Explorer

Tell HN: Facebook Messenger is testing in-call video ads

129 points by dindindin ↗ HN
A few minutes ago I was calling my family, and had a 15-second video ad after they picked up. According to them, they saw the ad too.

Do you think this is a case of A/B Testing, or are the ads here to say?

Picture for reference: https://imgur.com/a/ddddPAm

86 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 150 ms ] thread
i_have_an_idea
If it's true, it's a hilariously bad decision
ugjka
Coming to Whatsapp soon
thombat
And coming to Skype or Zoom or WebEx or some other competitor: a notification that "Unlike some of our competitors, we promise never to intrude into your calls"
zelphirkalt
We will never merge data from WA and FB!
theCrowing
that's amazing... there are people in a meeting room at facebook believing this will increase revenue and the product owner of fb messenger said yes. lol
ergonaught
Because consumers have a stellar track record of rejecting user-hostile decisions?

May as well try it. People are swallowing everything else.

victordmor
I don't think that said PO said yes naturally, I think he said yes forcefully.
otikik
If the meeting was virtual they could "enjoy" being interrupted by their own adds. Dogfooding!
johannes1234321
Just tells you a lot a lot what to expect in Metaverse and the experience there.
Yhippa
This is interesting. It sounds like Facebook is potentially looking under the couches, so-to-speak, for spare change by doing this. I also wonder if other comms apps are going to be doing this too?
joshstrange
Zoom has the audacity to show me (a paying Zoom subscriber) ads in the UI and at the end of calls. It's infuriating, even more so since it's ads for nothing I'd ever consider using.

In UI: https://cs.joshstrange.com/zTpdlC

End of call, always on top, popup: https://cs.joshstrange.com/BizVwE

EDIT: I get that it's less offensive since it's a "first-party ad"/"upsell" and I could forgive the banner in the app (even though dismissing it only makes it go away for like 24 hours, if that) but the popups post-meeting drive me bonkers. To the point I've considered seeing if I can write some code to watch for that window and kill it right away.

yakattak
This is annoying but advertisements tailored to the product you’re using aren’t nearly as offensive to just a random ad for some cheap wish.com product, interrupting your video call.
TheLoafOfBread
Free customer? I get it.

Paying customer? That's big no no

ceejayoz
Probably 80% of the SaaS apps I've run into have "want this feature? upgrade your plan!" upsells scattered around. It's clearly not a big no no.
ceejayoz
First-party upsells aren't at all uncommon in paid products. That's very different than what Facebook is doing.
dragonsky67
I don't see those things any more even when they do pop up. It's amazing how quickly you get trained to simply ignore advertising.
user3939382
That’s a f no from me dawg. They can add this to every video service out there and I’ll happily set up a SIP PBX. Not happening.
kevinsundar
Assuming this is true, who comes up with ideas like this?

If I was an advertiser do I really want to pay to have my ad (video nonetheless) shown to someone while they're actively trying to have a phone call? As a user, I'd just be pissed off at the advertiser plus im not looking at my screen when talking.

I guess technically this increases ad "views" metrics. But advertisers are just wasting their money. I hope the fact that Meta is testing changes like this causes advertisers to re-evaluate the risks of using FB advertising.

junga
Ads are often (if not always) shown to users who are actively trying to do something else. Like watching a video or reading an article. Why should this be different?
nyokodo
> video or reading an article

Setting aside that people load their browsers up with ad blockers to avoid those too, they're also async experiences that have no real-time social dynamics involved with them. Video calls are interpersonal and interruptions are highly problematic.

kevinsundar
Yes, but in the cases you mentioned the user is interacting with the same pane of glass. In this case, the user's interaction is voice, not the screen.

Also not to mention that calls are very private. And the impression it gives to consumers that their call is being used for ads or even tracking.

burkaman
I am certain the advertisers love this. All ads are intrusive, and generally the more intrusive the more expensive.
kevinsundar
Yes but intruding into private audio calls is something users would be heavily suspicious of. It's not hard to imagine a non technical users thinking "OMG they're showing me ads based on my calls". Lots of people already think this.

Also its one thing to show an expensive ad on a screen that the user is actively looking at (that might actually be effective), and another to show an expensive ad on a screen that 95% of users are not looking at.

api
If true this will end up selecting for less technical people, which will mean it'll turn into an ad feed full of quack garbage that is aggressively marketed to less technical people.
soco
But the ads they show will be based on your calls right? Because, how else...
mcculley
Why would they have to be based on the calls? Facebook already knows a lot about the participants.
ceejayoz
Has Facebook ever indicated they're capable of a "yep, we've got enough info on everyone, we're good" attitude?
mcculley
My reply was to “how else…”
iceburgcrm
The call to action piece is missing because even if you see something you want to click-on you will avoid it because you have a live call
3D30497420
A PM who's been given a metric goal and has their performance staked on hitting goal with nothing to counter-balance their push to hit that goal.

I recall a presentation someone gave awhile back which said something like, "Give a PM a goal that their job depends on and they will burn the company down to hit it."

I was a PM at a FAANG in a former life, so I can understand the pressure. Thankfully, I never did anything like this, partly because my team had a strong focus on customer experience but also because I cared less about the financial/promotion incentives.

samspenc
Sounds about right. From what I've heard, Meta is laser-focused on metrics compared to other tech companies and FAANGs, and entire promotion cycles are based around how much you "moved the needle" so to speak along some metrics. This "increase revenue through in-call ads" seems like low-hanging fruit for any PM or engineer who wanted to get promoted quickly.
ajsnigrutin
I wonder what would happen if there would be more "Karens", that would complain about this?

Looking at the screenshot, let's say it's a cat food ad... if that "Karen" would call the cat food company and complain that their ad wasted her time with an old relative, or whatever, and in turn waste that companies time... and multiply that with 10.000 karens,... but it needs people to actually be proactive about stuff like that.

underyx
I don’t understand why you would choose to say “karens” instead of “people”.
ajsnigrutin
Because "Karens" are usually the ones who complain to managers about stuff like this. "People" just say "meh" or complain to a friend or two, and a "Karen" will go through a whole line of managers and complain to all of them.
blooalien
Because lumping other people together under derogatory labels so that we can all more easily hate others is the "normal" way many humans interact with one another these days… :(
bitcharmer
I bet this is some MBA's idea
saos
I won't be surprised. Completely devoid of creativity and ideas
aussieshibe
I suspect this will be the final straw for many users, myself included.
MonkeyMalarky
Bonus points if the ad preceding your next conversation is uncannily relevant to what you were talking about last time.
whimsicalism
This makes 0 sense to me. There's literally no lock in with FB messenger.

The second I get a video ad - that's it for FB video calls for me.

apetresc
What do you mean? It's a messaging platform with built-in integration to the largest social network in the world. I couldn't possibly imagine a more textbook example of lock-in.
otikik
because it happens on a mobile phone, which already has a built-in way to do it.

"Hey mum, I decided to call you because that video ad bullshit is bullshit".

ajsnigrutin
But that doesn't include video part of a videocall and in many cases (internationall calls) cost quite a lot still.

The main push from sms/mms and calling to messaging services was the free price and additional features.

monsieurgaufre
Facetime (and/or Duo) will work exactly the same. Both are free.
ajsnigrutin
Yes, but you need an apple device for facetime, and how many people actually have Duo installed?

If your grandma has facebook and all her friends have facebook and all your friends have facebook... how many of them can you move over to Duo (r signal, telegram, matrix,...)?

monsieurgaufre
I used Duo as an example. I fail to see a real difference between a FB account and an iphone. Both serve as a way to connect to a network. Not everyone I know has a FB account, but most of those without a FB account have a cellphone. And frankly, around here (I live near Montreal), the majority have an iphone (and they already have Facetime).

I go where (my) people are and they are increasingly not on FB (and IG as well for that matter). Telegram, matrix and signal is not even mentionned.

I kind of get your point, but it can be applied to every network ever (needing a way to be part of the network).

ajsnigrutin
Outside of northern america, androids vastly outnumber iphones, especially with nonrich and non-tech-savy (and very-tech-savy) people.

I live in the balkans... if people call someone, they call someone using a phone. If they use any of the internet-call services (from facebook video, to skype, viber calls, whatsapp, duo, etc...), they do it because they either want video with their calls or because the normal calls are expensive (for example, a minute of calling from slovenia (EU) to serbia (non-EU) costs 0.59eur, same for eg. switzerland... calling from serbia/switzerland back home (while roaming) is even worse - 2.65eur/minute).

So, to call people via an app, those people need an app installed (and an account on that app). Since most people here have androids, they don't have duo preinstalled, but most of them use either Viber, facebook (which now serves ads) or whatsapp (which is technically facebook, so ads could come there too).

Yes, i have no problems with setting up a sip server, sharing the credentials over irc and then using wireguard on one side and ipsec on the other to protect the sip session. My mom only knows how to use whatsapp, because that's the only thing she ever needed, because everyone she calls has whatsapp installed. Explaining how to install duo, and then calling my aunts and uncles and telling them why they need duo is a pain in the ass, especially if they're already happy with whatsapp. I have no idea how many old people you know and have dealt with regarding technical stuff, but if you don't believe me, you can try migrating my family to signal... and good luck with that :D

LinuxBender
Wait, what? On a private person to person call? Curious if this will be a thing on cell phone calls next. This seems like a great way to kill off a platform.
srveale
We use fb for the family calls. This will add years to the project of being able to get grandma on a call without difficulty and I'm not sure she has that kind of time. I'm only half joking.
jsemrau
Interesting find. One might argue that ad-tech went too far on this one if they are tracking conversations to place the "right" ads. Some random thoughts: Would the ad be different for caller / recipient? Why would an advertiser place their ad there while there are "safer" places on Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Disney, etc? Are ad-tech business models at the end of the innovation cycle? What's coming next?
theropost
Is it going to display ads based on the conversation of the call?
tomschwiha
Its a win-win. Less bandwith costs -> cost reduction. Higher revenue. More, more money.

Sounds like someone deserves a promotion. Just look at the right numbers for your arguments.

TheLoafOfBread
I need to say, that I would probably lost my marbles if video call application would do anything like that.
rejectfinite
Time to move the family chat to Telegram.
woofwoofwoof
It is slowly adding ads as well. Currently in the channels only, but just give them some time.
tapoxi
Look I get that people love to shit on Signal because its not perfect, but this is the main reason I use it to call and message my family. It's a viable alternative to insane shit like Messenger and you should consider having your family members install it. It's incredibly easy to use.

Cue someone below me talking about how they set up a Matrix or XMPP server for grandma and its 'so easy' once you get the presence handshake working and if you're using a specific set of clients that support the right features.

ceejayoz
Is there a reason Signal couldn't put ads in their video call product?
shaldengeki
This is an interesting question. Doesn't Signal rather famously not track anything about who you're talking to? Reputational damage to Signal's brand aside, I expect it'd be hard to sell advertisers on a black hole.
fsflover
You can have advertisements without tracking. See the original TV ads.
comprev
The "tracking" was done by monitoring spikes in sales (using a promotional code) and "focus group" interviews from customers.

These days the accuracy of tracking has improved immensely.

jakecopp
If they did, you wouldn't be able to use a fork or another client because it isn't federated unfortunately.
ShowalkKama
that doesn't mean you can't fork the client. See telegram for an example of third party apps without federation
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
MandieD
Some chipper, go-getter PM forgot that not every call is a light, happy call.
barbs
Seems like a terrible idea. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of alternative platforms at hand that you can use for videochats, and I can't think of any that show intrusive video ads like this.

In the past, I've used Jitsi for when Facebook Messenger wasn't working for whatever reason.

Ptchd
FB getting desperate....
Grothendank
This is reminding me of the demise of AOL. Suddenly ads were everywhere. Then AOL was nowhere.