Bio not provided
As I said to dave that, day, actions speak louder than words, and to the best of my knowledge Dave has invested in more women than any other angel. So as far as I'm concerned it's silly slip of the tongue and he's been appropriate contrite, which is more than most of us will ever get from the truly misogynistic in this world.
1 month, 1 week ago on Dave McClure, Risk Taker
You think content marketing is new?
7 months, 3 weeks ago on Enough with the entitled whining — Facebook isn’t running an advertising charity
@fauxcab I have turned "up" the updates from people I like and there has been no increase in volume. facebook has hidden many of those controls, by the way, choosing to take it over. This I heard from a facebook employee, directly, claiming that they *knew* I didn't want to see every post. Umm. really? no, you don't. I follow hundreds of people on twitter, quite happily. Sure, I'm a sample size of one. I get that. maybe no one else cares, as I've been willing to admit over and over again.
Anyone who claims that buying facebook ads leads directly to revenue has never been in the situation of having to track it. If you're a big brand buying TV ads, sure, why not, this is a fun toy and "just another ad unit". If you're a budget constrained, metrics driven startup/small biz, of the group, as this article says, even Sheryl Sandberg recognizes are the heart and soul of FB's monetization strategy? No way. There's no way to track that 100%, because there's zero link to a conversion page. Regardless, the % of our conversions driven by Facebook (as measured in Google Analytics) really, is near zero, because as I keep saying, the customers we have there, we already had. we don't use facebook as an acquisition channel because it sucks at that. It's used for engagement and retention and customer service. Again, please explain how an organic post that is the most successful ever as measured by likes and shares, is viewed by fewer people than a post I paid to promote.
I'd argue that 1-2 posts a day should be free to post to ALL people who "like" the page. scale up. use the stick to control poor behavior. Drop my rates if my stuff is organic and well received. raise my rates if people are unliking me fast (aka Google Quality Score). But above all, be clear about what you are and are not doing and what you will and will not reward--then do that. . Google is 100x more transparent--and even I can't believe I'm saying that.
I guess i feel at this point like I've said all I'm going to say. I just really see the world differently from this post from my perch in a startup, not a big brand. I don't like being called an entitled whiner because of it. I have no axe to grind, I just want the best advertising at the lowest cost and I want to be able to reliably predict what I will get when I spend. that's all. I think I'm typed out and will leave this thread alone. I'm in vegas at a conference and it's time to get back to work! :D
@Joe Mellin Agree, the only right I have is not to use the system. Look, I used to work for eBay and PayPal, we said these kinds of things to customers all the time--think about all the complains around freezing PayPal accounts! And now.....well there's stripe, and square and eBay is no longer the darling of silicon valley. So believe me, I get it.
seriously, if we never posted on facebook again we'd not lose a dime in revenue. We weren't advertising there at all til a month ago when I started testing again (knowing the platform had changed). What I saw was enough to make me say, again, "not worth it." It didn't move the needle financially, one bit. Referral traffic from facebook is simply meaningless relative to google.
Yep, I'm just a dissenting voice in the universe. I don't expect anything to happen and I don't have a jihad against Facebook, as I said we will probably advertise there when we absolutely MUST. But I could spend a LOT more there if the ROI made sense. And so far, it doesn't. If I was a shareholder, I'd want to hear that point of view.
that's all, peace out.
@lisabari wow. ouch! I'll ignore the "good riddance" comment.
I do think many users and advertisers are NOT aware of what's happening here. And in my conversations with friends who work at Facebook, none of them can answer my question: why does the highest trafficked organic (unpromoted) post get less views than a paid post? That would never, ever happen at Google (or if it does, they've kept it secret for many, many years). As a result, I don't trust Facebook and I think other marketers should look into it and share their points of view. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I've tested this a lot in the last couple of weeks and i've come to the conclusion that I'll only pay for promoting a post when it's absolutely necessary to our business. our customers who want more frequent updates should subscribe to our Twitter feed, and that's what we tell them.
I truly think most people haven't woken up yet to what's going on. Essentially, my newsfeed is NOT what is most relevant to me (otherwise organic posts would be seen!) but what Facebook sells (or some combination thereof). This is VERY different from what they are telling people, and in an informal survey of my marketing colleagues, most had no idea this was going on but have ALL noticed engagement falling off recently. if you're a facebook shareholder, falling engagement and "like spam" should worry the crap out of you.
Regardless, calling a person with a different point of view "an entitled whiner" is really unjustified--and that got me riled up, I admit!
@buffaloreynolds Agree. The masses who actually WANT to receive updates from their favorite, loved, brands do not get to see them because Facebook is throttling them. At the same time, my personal feed is filled with "like spam" of the variety: "Click Like if you remember this!" which adds no value to my life; while important updates from my friends are unseen. If I want to see 16 posts a day from my favorite brand, that's my right. I don't want Facebook doing that.
@lisabari We have plenty of email addresses and facebook wasn't even close to the way we got them. We have a product people LOVE and a style that makes them want to hear from us. We do not spam them with crap and we make our communications value added, interesting, and only when necessary. So they trust us. I don't want facebook in the way of that relationship anymore--it isn't worth it from an ROI perspective.
@JayCoDon Thanks for the advice, but the day I offer a shitty ebook as a way to get someone's email address for the purposes of spamming them is the day someone should take away my marketing credentials. That type of tactic is NOT what authentic communication is about, and it's certainly not at the heart of any good, reputable social media campaign.
Seriously, where do you get off mansplaining to me how to market?
@lisabari Actually even our most popular post was never seen by as many people as those we paid for. I can prove this. FB is doing what even Google knew was wrong--letting paid ads replace good organic content. I know and believe uf I focus on content, Google will reward me. Not so with FB. I don't think Zuck or FB is evil, but as a customer I am expressing my disagreement with their choice.
@lisabari At many times the cost of email. No ROI.
As someone who has bought facebook ads for 3 companies in the last 4 years, I know the system and you are missing a critical point: we advertisers don't want to pay twice to reach a customer. We paid for a facebook ad to get a "like,"and now we're being charged to let people who like our page see our posts. Sure Facebook can do as it wants, but so can we, which is why we're asking facebook customers to follow us on twitter and sign up for email. We only post once a day. I really object to the abusive, inflammatory language of "entitled whiner," too. What you're doing in this piece isn't objective journalism, it's shilling for Facebook.