Bio not provided
I think a better comparison would be:
We spend money to advertise on google and get ppl to subscribe to our mailing list, and now google is saying we need to pay extra if we want to send emails to these subscribers ( of course google can't do that technically but let's assume it can).
The cost per fb fan used to be quite close to the cost per subscriber acquired through google ads. And now fb is saying u need to pay more if u want to reach those fans u paid for.
The whole thing is misleading in the first place. If fb had made it clear that fans are not really fans to your brand, u r going to pay more to reach them even if they still love u. I bet many brands wouldn't invest in so much to build up the fans base in the beginning.
Asking fans to subscribe to mailing list or follow twitter is what we can do at the moment to salvage our loss. ( imagine u have a restaurant, u spent so much money to build a customer list which by right u can reach them unless they opt out, but now someone is stealing it away gradually )
It is a sad thing that we believed fb is the new way to manage our customers base, until now we realized that it is totally not. And we need to get back to the good old ways of using emails.
And forget about the social second degree reach when ppl like or share our post. In the emails world ppl also forward our emails when they like it. What fb has done is making things simpler and easier, nothing more.
1 year, 11 months ago on Enough with the entitled whining — Facebook isn’t running an advertising charity