I think we've reached the point where no-one should be surprised about this. And besides:
What most users don’t know is that the new features being introduced are all centered around increasing the value of Facebook to advertisers
Centered? I don't know. Timeline seems pretty user-centric to me. I've had it for a few months as a developer, but since it became public I've seen plenty of my friends filling out details, tagging their friends in previous big life events... they're not doing it because Facebook tricked them into it, they're doing it because they want to.
Yes, there is also an advertiser advantage to this- same as any information you plug into Facebook. But I don't think it's fair to paint Facebook as cynically putting Timeline together so that they can mine data. If you're comfortable with the way Facebook makes money (which, personally, I am) there's nothing to go crazy about in here.
Most of the people I talk with don't like the idea of their pictures and words being shown to their friends as ads for products. Most of the people I talk with don't like the idea that things on their profile and in their feed are influenced by how much money Facebook can charge from ads. Most people I talk with are already sick of Facebook changing their interface and pretty skeptical about Timeline (they don't have the time to invest in tweaking it, they're concerned about old status messages and photos becoming a lot more visible) so get irritated when reminded that it's main goal is to maximize -exploitation- revenue.
So yeah, it's true that at some level nobody's particularly surprised by this any more. People are sick of Facebook and waiting for what's next, and for most of them Timeline will just reinforce those feelings.
Most people I talk with are already sick of Facebook changing their interface and pretty skeptical about Timeline
Most people 'hate' every single change Facebook has ever made, yet somehow manage to totally forget about it within about two months. People hate change.
Honestly, if "most people" are annoyed that Facebook serves ads based on the content of their profile then they should leave Facebook. Because that's the business model the site operates on.
I don't think they forget about it, any more than they forget about Facebook's pattern of privacy abuses and Mark's non-apologies. If there were an easy-to-use alternative, the people I talk to would love to leave FB instantly; as it is, they're cutting down how much they use it and feeling increasingly resentful. So yes they've posted great numbers in 2011 but from a competitive strategy perspective they're vulnerable.
The people you talk to are not typical. "Most people" aren't aware/bothered by the privacy aspects of Facebook- just look at the number of visible, insecure profiles.
Facebook is not vulnerable from a privacy standpoint- that was the reason everyone said that they were moving to Google+. They didn't.
The people I'm talking to are moms, dads, students, photographers, recent graduates, old friends from high school in rural Pennsylvania, relatives, people at the place I get my hair cut ... okay, admittedly I get my hair cut in San Francisco, and I talk to privacy advocates as well. It's not unanimous by any means, plenty of people still think it's just fine, but if they lose even 5-10% of their usage and/or engagement over the next quarter they'll have a real problem getting the IPO valuation they want.
Inability to use buggy poorly-designed extremely complex software correctly is not evidence that people don't care. I'm a software engineer and security guy and deal well with complexity and even so I haven't been able to figure out how to keep my profile both visible to the people I want to and secure without devoting way more time than I have available. When I tell people that they often respond "oh thank god it's not just me".
It's not just privacy; it's the whole pattern. The constantly-changing UX is a huge deal to a lot of people, and so is the general attitude of "you're the product" and Zuckerberg's non-apologies.
Agreed that Google+ botched their short-term chance but it has decent usage and now has a much better first-user experience so if people react badly to Timeline, there is an alternative. In any case Google+ has clearly shown there's pent-up demand for a Facebook alternative. They'll keep investing in any case, and there are plenty of other options coming along. I talked about this back in September in "In Chaos there is Opportunity" http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=3163
Exactly. When someone throws the old (yes, old) "Facebook monetizes the info that you post" argument in my face, the only thing I understand is that he's either new to Facebook and skipped the terms or... I don't know.
Bottom line is, Google did the same thing more or less when they introduced Google instant (reducing "I feel lucky" usage to serve more links) and, this might sound harsh, both are companies aim to make money while at the same time improve your user experience by serving targeted ads.
Seriously, it's nothing ground-breaking that no one knows.
Agreed, this is hardly surprising and the over inflammatory title is highly unfair.
If you add more information to Facebook then of course this will be improving the appeal of the platforms to advertisers, don't like it? Stop using it. It's not like there selling your address and phone number which MANY brick and mortar companies would do given the chance.
I get to use a great product without having to put my hand in my wallet, Facebook can continue to grow as a business, the end product improves.
Hi, I'm an engineer from Facebook's ads team. I worked on ads for Timeline.
The article's unsubstantiated premise is that Facebook releases products solely with its bottom line in mind. Based on my experience working on ads for Timeline, I'd say that this is antithetical to our nature. We optimized timeline for user experience (engagement) and released it not because of its impact to our bottom line but DESPITE that.
If you aren't convinced, look at the ads on Timeline, and compare to Profile. There were on average four ads per Profile page. Now there's two. People also click away a lot faster on Profile (because there's less content), but people now scroll around and navigate within Timeline. Photos are bigger, we show a lot more content. The resources to support these new products are expensive. If this doesn't illustrate our focus on engagement over our bottom line, color me surprised.
Just another point I wanted to clarify: Whenever money changed hands, even for organic content like sponsored stories, they are clearly labeled "Sponsored." If you don't see Sponsored, there was no optimization for revenue, because no money changed hands.
Ultimately, I think the author is exploiting a confusion between news feed and timeline. Sure, we will experiment with sponsoring organic content in news feed (max one), but they will be clearly labeled and things you can already see.
I just wanted to clarify a few issues that the author is either truly confused about, or is aware of but intentionally exploiting. I hope this helped.
If you have any questions I can answer, I'll be happy to clarify.
Just because Timeline shows fewer ads doesn't mean that net ad revenue doesn't come out ahead. Sponsored stories just need to make up for those 3 missing ads, which they almost surely will.
Optimizing for user engagement, when you make money off of ads, is optimizing for the bottom line by definition. To claim otherwise is disingenuous at best.
> Optimizing for user engagement, when you make money off of ads, is optimizing for the bottom line by definition. To claim otherwise is disingenuous at best.
Well, optimizing for f(x) (revenue) is different than optimizing for g(x) (engagement), which is related to f(x), and claiming that we are objectively optimizing for f(x). Not sure if that makes sense, but you are right that it is to our long term interest to optimize for user engagement, not because it necessarily optimizes our revenue, but it optimizes our value for users.
That's not the same as optimizing for revenue directly, though, so calling that "disingenuous at best" is a little misguided.
I'll attest to this. When I worked for SourceForge.net we removed tons of ads only AFTER a/b testing showed that fewer more prominent (i.e., "engaging") ads increase click-thru and revenue.
Can't we dispense with the inflammatory and misleading headlines, PLEASE? As before, FB is selling space on your timeline, not the contents of it. This is comparable to the targeted ads Hotmail (if I recall) used to insert into outgoing emails. I don't like it, just as I didn't like ads in my email, but it's a far cry from what the headline implies.
Facebook is so brilliant. I don't see why everyone is whining.
Our world is based fundamentally on consumption, and thus advertising is integral. In time, advertising is only on a path to becoming more effective. And to do so it will become more integrated with our lives. History confirms: this is quite unavoidable. Plan accordingly.
However, while Google spends countless resources tinkering with their ad delivery algorithms to get that 1% increase that generates them millions more revenue, FB rolls in with a new paradigm that I'm sure will leapfrog whatever Google has done. Brilliant.
”If you’ve liked that business’s page, the story about you liking the page (including your name or profile photo) may be paired with the ad your friends see.”
I completely agree with you that this is a brilliant game-changer. I don't like it, and won't be a part of it, but there is no question that I would have an emotional response to the picture of one of my friends "liking" a restaurant or a product.
And, I suspect it will be allowed as long as it is clearly spelled out in the TOS (for those who didn't read, there is some dissent and even legal action concerning using the photos of people without direct consent). I also doubt that people will quit FB because of it.
This reminds me a bit about the (small) uproar when brands like Nike were just starting to sell T-shirts with their names on them. Many of us said, "Why would I pay money to advertise for them? They should pay me to wear it!)
Nevertheless, most people were perfectly willing to spend the money and advertise the logo.
Here it is at least clear that the consumer is getting something for his/her willingness to advertise: s/he is getting the use of FB.
> I would have an emotional response to the picture of one of my friends "liking" a restaurant or a product.
The first time I saw an article that was 'liked' by one of my friends on HN I definitely had an emotional response. I logged out of facebook and never went back.
That was the old model, where ads were served to us in exchange for free services. This is a new model, as others have pointed out, where my identity / likeness is being used (without my explicit permission, mind you) to sell products. Famous people sue over stuff like that, but I'll just take the compensation.
Isn't this just how the sausage is made? It is interesting that Timeline actually makes it easier to disrupt the flow of personal information and privilege ads over friends. But this is how the marketing department of any big company would see it. Can't IPO without getting your hands dirty.
where F.B stands for fluff bustin (due to Copyright asserted on the word "Facebook")
If you must use this necessary evil called FB, I think it is high time users started pushing back on the types of info they want to see and are willing to put-up with.
I really don't know, but it sure seems like a potential horrible, Netflix level misstep. There's no evidence that FB users want Timeline or that it will work the way they want their social network to work.
neg away. this is the blunt truth, not a coincidence that these 'innovations' are unveiled this close to the IPO. they want to cash in before while they can. the greater the rise, the greater the fall, gravity is not sentimental.
You know, this has something to it. For weeks the first story in the top-right module of my timeline said I "liked" Bed Bath & Beyond, and for weeks I wondered why it wasn't being pushed off by the other things that go through that little box (new friendships, attending events, etc).
I guess Bed Bath & Beyond is a customer. I honestly like this though, because the ad is reactive to their merit - I went and clicked that like button. Facebook is so clever. They're turning parts of our activity into advertisements by making them somewhat longer-lasting. It's much more pleasant than having an Acura ad shoved down my throat on YouTube, or having to drive past a smug 100-foot McDonalds ad every morning.
What most users don’t know is that the new features being introduced are all centered around increasing the value of Facebook to advertisers
Centered? I don't know. Timeline seems pretty user-centric to me. I've had it for a few months as a developer, but since it became public I've seen plenty of my friends filling out details, tagging their friends in previous big life events... they're not doing it because Facebook tricked them into it, they're doing it because they want to.
Yes, there is also an advertiser advantage to this- same as any information you plug into Facebook. But I don't think it's fair to paint Facebook as cynically putting Timeline together so that they can mine data. If you're comfortable with the way Facebook makes money (which, personally, I am) there's nothing to go crazy about in here.