FaceAd
Ok, Facebook. What's up with the ads?
Facebook has long placed advertising to the right of the screen, usually aimed at things you're talking about and interested in. In my book, that's all good, and it's perfectly ok for a service to use advertising as a revenue screen.
In fact, it's more or less a good deal all around: we (the users) provide the content, making Facebook a huge destination and capturing, in marketing-speak, lots of "eyeballs." Facebook provides the platform, and has done a pretty good job of creating useful, and easy to use, software that enables us to share pictures, videos, information, and updates. Granted, there are certain things about Facebook that are annoying, such as your inability to leave (delete your account) and then come back later if you change your mind. You can disable your account, but once you've deleted it, you're "banned." Odd, that.
But now Facebook has started serving up ad in the middle of your status stream - and even on your own page (at the top in the banner space). I first noticed this because, as I was scrolling down the page getting the latest from my friends, a big, flashing, impossible-to-ignore ad popped up. An ad which had nothing to do with my interests or discussions.
This last is a real annoyance to me. With all that Facebook knows about me, ads that have already been, er, "added" to the mix of information on Facebook have generally been about things "they" know I'm interested in. If I report that I'm going on a vacation to the Bahamas, its not long before an ad for something related to travel, vacation, or the Bahamas will pop up on my right hand ad space. I honestly don't mind this. I'm going to the Bahamas, so learning more about my destination and options when I get there isn't intrusive to me.
But an ad for replacement dentures? And in the middle of my status updates?
Well, we've said it before in this column, most of the "free" services and information on the Internet would eventually need to find a way to make it pay. Some have opted for the "premium" service, which, for a modest monthly fee, is provided with no ads, and perhaps additional content and service. Others are going the Facebook route, and simply delivering ads - the old radio and tv model - in the middle of your content. Clearly, those sidebar ads were too easy to ignore, so Facebook realized it had to do something to make them more prominent.
But do I really need to say it? With tv, and to a lesser extent, radio, we're involved in a story. We want to find out what happens. So we endure the ad(s), waiting for our story to resume. With the Internet, we have options. Obviously, I can scroll down past an ad on Facebook. On some services, such as online games, your gaming is interrupted for a :30 spot from time to time. Right now, they seem to be placing these ads between round of, say, Popit. But I'm sure that eventually they'll put the ad in the middle of the game so that you are more inclined to watch it, rather than turning away to do something else until the game panel returns.
It's actually slightly amusing watching marketers struggle to find a model that's as successful as the radio and tv advertising of yesteryear. Some video services invite you to choose which advertiser you'd like to hear from when your show is interrupted periodically. Others overlay the content you're trying to view with an ad that you have to actively click off - and the "off" option is frequently hard to find. My favorite method continues to be parsing your emails, and "observing" your activity and then offering you ads for subjects you have expressed interest in. (And this kind of advertising seems to generate the most return in terms of clicks, leads, and sales.)
Much as I hate to say it, the only real way to guarantee money-making on the Internet is to charge for content. This would certainly weed out the also-rans. Of course, there would always be some websites that offer up their content free of charge simply because they love the subject and don't mind putting in the time. But while it's likely that we'd pay a modest monthly fee to access YouTube, it's not as likely that we'd pay for Rotten.com. Okay, maybe we would...
I will be interested to see what happens as Facebook continues to roll out the status-feed ads (it seems they are introducing it in waves, as some users I know have not seen the ads yet), and whether the strategy proves to be effective.
I have my doubts.
Facebook has long placed advertising to the right of the screen, usually aimed at things you're talking about and interested in. In my book, that's all good, and it's perfectly ok for a service to use advertising as a revenue screen.
In fact, it's more or less a good deal all around: we (the users) provide the content, making Facebook a huge destination and capturing, in marketing-speak, lots of "eyeballs." Facebook provides the platform, and has done a pretty good job of creating useful, and easy to use, software that enables us to share pictures, videos, information, and updates. Granted, there are certain things about Facebook that are annoying, such as your inability to leave (delete your account) and then come back later if you change your mind. You can disable your account, but once you've deleted it, you're "banned." Odd, that.
But now Facebook has started serving up ad in the middle of your status stream - and even on your own page (at the top in the banner space). I first noticed this because, as I was scrolling down the page getting the latest from my friends, a big, flashing, impossible-to-ignore ad popped up. An ad which had nothing to do with my interests or discussions.
This last is a real annoyance to me. With all that Facebook knows about me, ads that have already been, er, "added" to the mix of information on Facebook have generally been about things "they" know I'm interested in. If I report that I'm going on a vacation to the Bahamas, its not long before an ad for something related to travel, vacation, or the Bahamas will pop up on my right hand ad space. I honestly don't mind this. I'm going to the Bahamas, so learning more about my destination and options when I get there isn't intrusive to me.
But an ad for replacement dentures? And in the middle of my status updates?
Well, we've said it before in this column, most of the "free" services and information on the Internet would eventually need to find a way to make it pay. Some have opted for the "premium" service, which, for a modest monthly fee, is provided with no ads, and perhaps additional content and service. Others are going the Facebook route, and simply delivering ads - the old radio and tv model - in the middle of your content. Clearly, those sidebar ads were too easy to ignore, so Facebook realized it had to do something to make them more prominent.
But do I really need to say it? With tv, and to a lesser extent, radio, we're involved in a story. We want to find out what happens. So we endure the ad(s), waiting for our story to resume. With the Internet, we have options. Obviously, I can scroll down past an ad on Facebook. On some services, such as online games, your gaming is interrupted for a :30 spot from time to time. Right now, they seem to be placing these ads between round of, say, Popit. But I'm sure that eventually they'll put the ad in the middle of the game so that you are more inclined to watch it, rather than turning away to do something else until the game panel returns.
It's actually slightly amusing watching marketers struggle to find a model that's as successful as the radio and tv advertising of yesteryear. Some video services invite you to choose which advertiser you'd like to hear from when your show is interrupted periodically. Others overlay the content you're trying to view with an ad that you have to actively click off - and the "off" option is frequently hard to find. My favorite method continues to be parsing your emails, and "observing" your activity and then offering you ads for subjects you have expressed interest in. (And this kind of advertising seems to generate the most return in terms of clicks, leads, and sales.)
Much as I hate to say it, the only real way to guarantee money-making on the Internet is to charge for content. This would certainly weed out the also-rans. Of course, there would always be some websites that offer up their content free of charge simply because they love the subject and don't mind putting in the time. But while it's likely that we'd pay a modest monthly fee to access YouTube, it's not as likely that we'd pay for Rotten.com. Okay, maybe we would...
I will be interested to see what happens as Facebook continues to roll out the status-feed ads (it seems they are introducing it in waves, as some users I know have not seen the ads yet), and whether the strategy proves to be effective.
I have my doubts.
Comments