Yes, Facebook lost face during this episode. They have a bit of a history of pushing crowd's expectations so the surprise factor has worn a bit. They have already 'promised' to get rid of trouble makers like Google did with new anti-SEO algorithm. Welcome to Fortune 500 - fix fuckups with PR, cut aggressiveness later.
This is a horrifically terrible piece of commentary. There is almost nothing of substance in it other than invective and it appears to represent a complete and utter misunderstanding of the evidence and arguments put forth from the original video.
I might be missing something. The article headline says that Veritasium "got it all wrong", but I'm struggling to see what it is exactly that they got wrong.
There's this part:
> For starters, there’s a stunning lack of anything like testing. In fact, the lack of success that led to the irate video blogger’s claims of “fraud” is largely due to a lack of proper understanding when it comes to vital components of digital marketing like testing and targeting.
which is given without justification or evidence.
In fact, when it ends on:
> "It’s also important to note that Facebook does need to “clean up the pool” a little bit. Then implement some of the same type of fraudulent chargebacks that Google AdWords has now – which are a direct result of fraudulent clicks during the early days of paid search advertising."
makes it sound like Veritasium got it exactly right. What am I missing here?
Didn't really find much substance in this beyond repetition of 'fraudster' and accusations of incompetence; rather disappointing.
Only real bit of argument appeared to be this:
>Calling Facebook and its advertising “a fraud” because you choose to run a “like campaign” in a part of the world that is known for fraudulent links would be like calling Yahoo Stores “a fraud” because you chose to make your online shop visible in, say, Nigeria.
But the video _did_ include an experiment running in areas less known for fraud. A discussion of the merits and failures of that casual experiment would have been worthwhile!
That blog post is exactly the reason why people automatically assume anything coming out from someone who identifies as an 'advertising expert' is instantly dismissed. Lots of words without actually addressing a single point from the original video.
Summary of article: "No, because that would be awful for my business".
I suspect Fang Digital has pushed this terrible notion on their clients for years and now look like idiots, so they are doubling down.
FYI: The marketers I work with have near universally dismissed FB as anything but "brand building for when you have more marketing budget than sense"... well before this video (or the 2012 BBC one) put it into the commons.
> Calling Facebook and its advertising “a fraud” because you choose to run a “like campaign” in a part of the world that is known for fraudulent clicks
He ran it in US, CA, AU, UK targeting cat lovers (see: http://youtu.be/oVfHeWTKjag @ 6:00) -- additionally, this is a full on admittance that fraudulent clicks are a huge issue.
> astute among us know that measurements such as “Likes” do not constitute anything
Then maybe facebook shouldn't be selling them as the metric?
Uhm, "And gets it all wrong" why exactly? Other than being a wall of text pissing on veritasium, there's no explanation or debunk of what veritasium actually got wrong, none, zilch, zip.
There's a saying that, extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof. Now, I saw the video, and it's pretty well done and goes to some length to underscore veritasiums claim of fraud with plenty of proof.
This blog entry however, just claims that veritasium has got it all wrong, but provides no proof whatsoever, no argument.
But I assume that kind of "argument" is probably pretty common among "advertising professionals", after all, these are the same people who "advise" people to put more and more annoying ads on pages, with end result that everybody will have to install adblock. There's an industry ripe for extinction.
I'm not sure I understand Ferguson's rant. He seems to be focused on the video author not knowing how to do PR right and claiming that he didn't do any testing then saying that Facebook needs to do some cleanup.
The video itself wasn't trying to be a tutorial on this. It stated a very simple argument:
Facebook's legitimate paid "Like" campaigns are a waste of money because the paid-for-clicks are used up by illegitimate "Like" campaigns trying to avoid detection; they do not reach people genuinely interested in his product. And, Facebook is happy to keep the status quo as it generates revenue for them.
It fails to produce any proof or specifics (funnily enough exactly what he accuses the video of). It doesn't go beyond saying "it's wrong because I say so". Then it throws in some buzzwords which all link to other articles on the same blog. Sounds like another clueless blogger desperate for clicks.
Sorry if this seems harsh, I just tire of seeing stuff like this all the time.
10 comments
[ 1235 ms ] story [ 1600 ms ] threadThere's this part:
> For starters, there’s a stunning lack of anything like testing. In fact, the lack of success that led to the irate video blogger’s claims of “fraud” is largely due to a lack of proper understanding when it comes to vital components of digital marketing like testing and targeting.
which is given without justification or evidence.
In fact, when it ends on:
> "It’s also important to note that Facebook does need to “clean up the pool” a little bit. Then implement some of the same type of fraudulent chargebacks that Google AdWords has now – which are a direct result of fraudulent clicks during the early days of paid search advertising."
makes it sound like Veritasium got it exactly right. What am I missing here?
the video "gets it all wrong" because fang digital says so?
as they're into digital marketing i'd at least expected them to come up with some statistics proving the video wrong…
Only real bit of argument appeared to be this:
>Calling Facebook and its advertising “a fraud” because you choose to run a “like campaign” in a part of the world that is known for fraudulent links would be like calling Yahoo Stores “a fraud” because you chose to make your online shop visible in, say, Nigeria.
But the video _did_ include an experiment running in areas less known for fraud. A discussion of the merits and failures of that casual experiment would have been worthwhile!
I suspect Fang Digital has pushed this terrible notion on their clients for years and now look like idiots, so they are doubling down.
FYI: The marketers I work with have near universally dismissed FB as anything but "brand building for when you have more marketing budget than sense"... well before this video (or the 2012 BBC one) put it into the commons.
> Calling Facebook and its advertising “a fraud” because you choose to run a “like campaign” in a part of the world that is known for fraudulent clicks
He ran it in US, CA, AU, UK targeting cat lovers (see: http://youtu.be/oVfHeWTKjag @ 6:00) -- additionally, this is a full on admittance that fraudulent clicks are a huge issue.
> astute among us know that measurements such as “Likes” do not constitute anything
Then maybe facebook shouldn't be selling them as the metric?
There's a saying that, extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof. Now, I saw the video, and it's pretty well done and goes to some length to underscore veritasiums claim of fraud with plenty of proof.
This blog entry however, just claims that veritasium has got it all wrong, but provides no proof whatsoever, no argument.
But I assume that kind of "argument" is probably pretty common among "advertising professionals", after all, these are the same people who "advise" people to put more and more annoying ads on pages, with end result that everybody will have to install adblock. There's an industry ripe for extinction.
The video itself wasn't trying to be a tutorial on this. It stated a very simple argument:
Facebook's legitimate paid "Like" campaigns are a waste of money because the paid-for-clicks are used up by illegitimate "Like" campaigns trying to avoid detection; they do not reach people genuinely interested in his product. And, Facebook is happy to keep the status quo as it generates revenue for them.
So, what's the beef?
It fails to produce any proof or specifics (funnily enough exactly what he accuses the video of). It doesn't go beyond saying "it's wrong because I say so". Then it throws in some buzzwords which all link to other articles on the same blog. Sounds like another clueless blogger desperate for clicks.
Sorry if this seems harsh, I just tire of seeing stuff like this all the time.