If FB launches Adsense like product then that would be massive. Lot of websites have FB connect integrated into them and given the amount of data users have on FB you can do some solid targeting.
they won't launch Adsense killer. Don't have stats with me, but seen it yesterday that CPM clickthrough Google vs Fb is 2:1. AdSense is very well positioned since ever. I don't think you could convince an average website owner to switch to FB Ads for 50% less in profits.
That's not really a fair assessment. When people are on facebook they are there to be on facebook. When people are on google they are specifically looking to go somewhere else. Of course they are going to have a higher click-through.
When you are talking about another website, we get to a middle ground that might be looking for something specific and might just be browsing. Having all of facebooks data about someone and giving them targeted ads could very well work better than google at that point on the spectrum.
I'm not saying it will be better, but it's certainly possible, and comparing google's clicks to facebook is comparing apples to oranges. As someone who has several websites using adsense I would certainly be willing to give facebook a trial run and do some A/B testing.
OK, I see your point. But still the question remains if FB could convince popular websites to try Ads with them. It would definitely be an interesting to see the results.
Yeah keep in mind that the really popular websites don't use adsense. They sell their own advertising space for more than they can make using adsense. Most website owners like to a/b test all kinds of things though. I've tried lots of different ways of monetizing mine and have ended up back at adsense because it's been the best for me. Given that, I would definitely test facebook to see how it did and if it did better i'd keep it, if not I'd go back to adsense.
good intent but the op must not be familiar with online advertising. It is very hard to command $20 CPM (or the equivalent in CPC) on no search traffic (where people are not actively looking for a solution). Even big brands that do 'image' advertising and do not care about immediate ROI would balk at such a figure. Case in point: GM just pulled out of FB
The biggest wild card from my perspective is that the premise and promise of facebook is that it remains cool. People didn't use google to be cool. Twitter, to my friends and I, was actually pretty uncool initially and now has become my primary news feed. If today's tweens and teeny boppers don't jump ship in the next five years, then facebook may have really become the infrastructure company it claims/desires to be, until then, the doubts will linger.
I think that buying Instagram was a clear signal that if something cool-er comes around the corner, we will buy it. that is, unless they try to buy from another Zuckerberg.
The half-life of "cool" is very short. Facebook started out as a hangout for college kids, and then it became the cool alternative to MySpace. But now, when parents and grandparents are using Facebook, is it really cool anymore? If boring corporations like enterprise software companies have a presence on Facebook, that would also seem to detract from its coolness. At some point, when everyone is on Facebook, not being on Facebook will become the cool new thing.
There are a lot of 'ifs' in this article. This is the shortcomming with Facebook. Where are the results? Facebook's filings to the SEC have not been that impressive.
At the end of the day, it's all about the revenue! If the revenue does not match the wild expectations that have been placed on this stock, it will dive!
Just as much as they are predicting the biggest IPO of the history, I am predicting the biggest downslide in the shortest possible time, given what you said and all the good publicity will wash away and someone will ask: "show me the money".
edit: I am not saying it will happen the same day or this month. I am rather saying that sooner or later just like lots of people were buying on hype, lots of people will be selling on hype as well.
Facebook is going to do great for the first 2-3 years - until the big investors convince everyone that facebook is here to stay. Then, the bloodbath will begin.
Google does the same thing. So what? If I'm going to have to look at ads, I'd rather they be relevant. I've actually found Facebook ads genuinely useful on a few occasions. I even applied for a job that I heard about on a Facebook ad once. What I hate is when my friend uses my computer to search for tents, then all I see is tent ads all over the internet for the next month.
lol. I hear ya. (But I think Google and Facebook's data are qualitatively a bit different.)
It's anyone's guess whether this online privacy stuff really means anything to most people. Obviously Google, Facebook, et al. are hedging their bets that it's not a big deal.
As users we can only speak for ourselves. This is because we generally don't watch others, looking over their shoulder as they use a computer to see exactly what they do... which raises an interesting question: Does that imply that we are recognising some sort of right to privacy? A lot of effort goes into trying to figure out how others use a computer. But unless it's study of volunteers it's not done by just standing behind them and watching.
Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I think one important question to ask oneself is this: would I - in any way - like to be a part of making Facebook a real force to be reckoned with?
I don't mind Google, Amazon, Apple or Twitter (much). I do mind Facebook.
I suspect I'm not alone having these feelings. If you feel the same way, please re-consider your contribution to making Facebook a success.
Apologizes in advance if this came across as "political" or libel or something akin to that, but I do believe these (last few and) coming years will have a very lasting impact on the way we use internet. Personally targeted ads, cyber espionage and Facebook connect aren't exactly "nice things" in my book, and probably won't be in the history books either.
Unfortunately, the problem is that the most or the average user doesn't care, is not aware, or is too busy to care OR to understand all this privacy policy issues. Overall Facebook has a good PR face: its connecting people, its free, it lets you upload your stuff, and the owner sponsored some school in New York, so it all sounds good. To someone who ever doubt anything in this word, yes its alot of smoke and mirror, but I say until the majority will understand that nothing is for free and that Facebook needs to make money by selling ads or data about its users, until then the show will go on, Facebook will keep its servers running, and co-owners will be getting richer.
But I believe as we humans progress on average, there is significant "online education" of dos and donts happening and sooner or later people will be more are more skeptic of getting this "free" candy.
For me there is a wide spectrum between good and evil. Where a particular company falls onto this spectrum is based on how much I feel it has contributed to pushing humanity forward. This is definitely subjective stuff. Among the major players, I also put Google, Amazon, Apple and Twitter on the good side. There are concerns on many fronts with each of them, but up until now their net contributions have pushed humanity forward.
Facebook too has pushed things, enabling a new level of connectivity across the planet. The costs we have paid for this outweigh the benefits. I do not believe the net contributions of Facebook have made the world a better place for humans - thus, they fall on the evil side of the spectrum. Similarly, Microsoft did help bring forth the era of a computer in every home among other things, but their methods also held back progress enough to place them on the evil side of the spectrum. And then there are companies like Zynga - no need to even guess which side they fall on. I cannot in good conscience support a company that harms our future, and in fact feel an obligation to fight them.
What about search? If Facebook could ship a search product somewhere between the quaility of Bing and Google wouldn't that change the search and social space tremendously? It would increase the amount of time each user spends on FB/day, Facebook would deliver far more ads and build much more extensive user profiles, increasing the value/user metric.
Building a big search product requires a massive infrastructure and engineering effort, two things Facebook has a solid history around.
21 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 56.3 ms ] threadEdit: Grammar
When you are talking about another website, we get to a middle ground that might be looking for something specific and might just be browsing. Having all of facebooks data about someone and giving them targeted ads could very well work better than google at that point on the spectrum.
I'm not saying it will be better, but it's certainly possible, and comparing google's clicks to facebook is comparing apples to oranges. As someone who has several websites using adsense I would certainly be willing to give facebook a trial run and do some A/B testing.
edit: I am not saying it will happen the same day or this month. I am rather saying that sooner or later just like lots of people were buying on hype, lots of people will be selling on hype as well.
"This could generate billions."
Or it could prime even more users for a privacy-respecting alternative.
It's anyone's guess whether this online privacy stuff really means anything to most people. Obviously Google, Facebook, et al. are hedging their bets that it's not a big deal.
As users we can only speak for ourselves. This is because we generally don't watch others, looking over their shoulder as they use a computer to see exactly what they do... which raises an interesting question: Does that imply that we are recognising some sort of right to privacy? A lot of effort goes into trying to figure out how others use a computer. But unless it's study of volunteers it's not done by just standing behind them and watching.
I don't mind Google, Amazon, Apple or Twitter (much). I do mind Facebook.
I suspect I'm not alone having these feelings. If you feel the same way, please re-consider your contribution to making Facebook a success.
Apologizes in advance if this came across as "political" or libel or something akin to that, but I do believe these (last few and) coming years will have a very lasting impact on the way we use internet. Personally targeted ads, cyber espionage and Facebook connect aren't exactly "nice things" in my book, and probably won't be in the history books either.
But I believe as we humans progress on average, there is significant "online education" of dos and donts happening and sooner or later people will be more are more skeptic of getting this "free" candy.
Facebook too has pushed things, enabling a new level of connectivity across the planet. The costs we have paid for this outweigh the benefits. I do not believe the net contributions of Facebook have made the world a better place for humans - thus, they fall on the evil side of the spectrum. Similarly, Microsoft did help bring forth the era of a computer in every home among other things, but their methods also held back progress enough to place them on the evil side of the spectrum. And then there are companies like Zynga - no need to even guess which side they fall on. I cannot in good conscience support a company that harms our future, and in fact feel an obligation to fight them.
Building a big search product requires a massive infrastructure and engineering effort, two things Facebook has a solid history around.