Posts Tagged facebook
I always enjoy seeing familiar names in the media, so it was interesting to see Andrew Noyes quoted in the New York Times article I was reading with this blog post in mind. Noyes recently spoke at an Ogilvy Exchange held at my work about Gov 2.0.
In Ethical Quandary for Social Sites, Jennifer Preston looks at something that recent events (covered in a few previous blog posts) have called into question: “whether a company should maintain its commitment to remain neutral about content, even when politicized content could offend users or even put people in danger.” Most sites with social aspects have terms of service that they can turn to in cases of questionable content, but the article points out that Flickr does not always enforce its own rules.
Andrew Noyes of Facebook sums up the view of many sites— “We want Facebook to be a place where people can openly discuss ideas and express their views, while respecting the rights and feelings of others.” In other words, they want to serve as a forum for their uses to communicate much like they would in other parts of their lives— what is said via text, email, and spoken word can also be communicated on Facebook (and on Twitter, on Flickr, and YouTube, to name a few).
Clearly Mark Zuckerburg never thought that by creating the next “hot or not” he would enter into a situation where the Israeli government has big asks— but now that is the case. While a strict terms of service can help to justify removal of posts that incite violence, or of users who are not using their full names, if it is not always enforced (although realistically, that is not possible), isn’t it stifling to enforce the T.O.S. only in the controversial cases?
I don’t think that this article demonstrates the “end” of this issue in the social media realm— but if a site takes down a page at the request of a government/organization, it becomes a slippery slope— who is to say that the next person to request removal of a page does not deserve their wishes granted, as well? And what role does a social media site play in these ethical/political/social struggles?
Tonight, I experimented with Facebook Ads. I approached it as though I wanted to advertise this blog.
Here’s who I wanted to reach:
On these parameters, Facebook set a bid at $1.56 per click, and here is how my ad came out:
- Wow- you can target people on their birthdays? Genius!
- I can think of some interesting ads for Valentine’s Day based on the option to choose people single, married, in relationships, etc.
- Never knew that you could target people based on their sexual preference.
- Picture size is tiny! It was hard to limit the detail on the picture.
Those these options only take up a short web page, my mind was spinning at the options. Now the new Facebook pages make sense to me— linking directly to specific television shows, bands, media outlets, and other interests allows for much more direct targeting and segmentation.
I was very surprised at the ease of use for Facebook ads— it literally took me about ten minutes to do everything except pay for this ad. Of course, a real ad would require a bit more thinking, but Facebook is smart to have such a low barrier of entry for their ad service. I’d be interested to see what their metrics dashboard looks like after buying the ad!
One thing was loud and clear in this week’s readings. Money is not the determinant of success when it comes to online ad campaigns. Creativity is. The Marsden campaigndedicated just 4% of its budget to an online ad spend, while the Public Sector Blognoted that Bush and Kerry spent just 1% on online ads in 2004, and Scott Brown’s 10% spend was a record high.
Using the “long tail” idea, campaigners are able to take advantage of the Internet’s extremely fractured audiences and tailor messages to specific nanotargets. For example, a candidate can reach females 65+ in Virginia who are searching for information about their Medicare benefits. This approach is more labor intensive than traditional advertising methods, yet it makes much more sense the target audience is so specific. Why bother paying to advertise in the Richmond Times Dispatch when for much less, you could be sure to reach that target audience – AND track the results?
Josh Koster insists that “the trick it to be everywhere, with tightly targeted messages.” This makes sense, but how can a campaign achieve that? What these examples show is that creativity is key.
Koster points out another benefit – these targeted ads are so inexpensive, quick, and easy to set up (especially if they are simply text ads with no creative), that they can easily be tested out and tweaked accordingly. This is a benefit that traditional advertising definitely does not offer. In addition, success is much more measurable when clicks, email opens, and site visits can be quantified. By contrast, direct mail pieces are essentially untraceable once sent out, and other ads can offer impression numbers, but not much else.
What I found most interesting about this week’s reading was the targeting of the media outlined in Nanotargeted Pressure. Koster and Davis point out that “using paid media to drive earned media is not new,” but using digital paid media to do so is certainly a newer frontier. I have a unique interest in using social media to target the media, but had never considered something like Google or Facebook ads to reach media. Facebook’s “workplace targeting” feature is especially interesting- and I can think of some creative ways for jobseekers to target employers using this feature. To see such a huge achievement with only $1750 invested truly speaks to the power of targeted digital advertising.
Other examples of creativity were abound in this week’s readings. Rather than complain about the media’s (lack of) coverage of Iran’s election, Koster actually did something— crashed Iran’s propaganda/news site. For those people who think that Twitter is about people sharing what they eat for lunch, this is concrete evidence to the contrary. For those well-versed in digital advertising, perhaps they’d like to trylinking to a website other than their own? Not only does this disassociate the ad with the campaign that placed the ad, it directs the audience to a source that they (likely) view as credible and non-partisan.
And for the truly innovative, CNN covered Koster’s realization that anyone standing in line on election day Googling for political info is probably determining who to vote for— so why not leverage Google ads on election day to reach those individuals?
While I knew that online advertising allowed further segmentation of audiences, I didn’t realize its true potential until reading this week’s articles. It will be interesting to see how online platforms continue to leverage their assets (in this case, demographic information about their users) in order to gain advertisers on large and small scales.