Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Cost To 'Promote' a Facebook Post: $200 To $500

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the really-expensive-syndication dept.

Facebook 117

nonprofiteer writes "There's been talk in recent months of Facebook's 'promoted posts' option. In beta testing, it cost about $5-10 dollars to get more of your friends/fans to see your posts in news feeds. Now that it's live, it's a bit more expensive, at least for those with big followings. On the Forbes Facebook page, the cost ranges from $200 to $500 to get from 50,000 to 250,000 people to see a given post. Another lame attempt at monetization, or will Facebook users actually pony up?" This is what happens when everyone stops using RSS/Atom for syndication.

cancel ×

117 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Poor marketing investment (5, Insightful)

gagol (583737) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855613)

Many firms have publicly stated they were pulling from facebook ads because of lack or return on investment and intensive bot clicking.

Re:Poor marketing investment (5, Informative)

dav1dc (2662425) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855715)

GM said it best the day before the FaceBook IPO: "FaceBook Ads Don't WORK!"

http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/markets/articles/facebook-ipo-gm-advertising-pullout-ford/5/16/2012/id/41053 [minyanville.com]

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855909)

You idiots gave your souls to facebook. Serves you right.

Re:Poor marketing investment (2)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856403)

What really irks me is that they just fired the guy responsible for pulling that ad money out of Facebook (and the 2012 super bowl). I think he was right on the money, but apparently there's no room in GM's marketing budget for common sense.

Re:Poor marketing investment (1)

krakelohm (830589) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856541)

The way that went down it sounds like there is way more to the story then him pulling money from FB & the Super Bowl.

Re:Poor marketing investment (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856721)

It's probably worth noting that he wasn't fired for pulling facebook ads. He was fired for getting in the CEO's face.

Re:Poor marketing investment (3, Interesting)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856907)

Yeah, I saw the business story a few days ago. I think it's worth keeping an employee willing to dust things up and make bold moves every once in a while. GM of all companies should know the risks of a bureaucracy of yes-men; it nearly killed them. It sounds like he made some controversial decisions at his post, and wasn't afraid to mix it up defending them to his superiors.

It's still push advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856421)

Slice and dice demographics all day long, but the FB model is still push advertising. At least with Google you know what people are looking for and can put it in their face when they explicitly ask for it.

Not quite... (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856939)

Putting it in quotes makes it sound like that's the comment GM made. What they actually said:

We regularly review our overall media spend and make adjustments as needed. This happens as a regular course of business and it's not unusual for us to move our spending around various media outlets - especially with the growth of social and digital media outlets.

In terms of Facebook specifically, we are reassessing our advertising, but remain committed to an aggressive content strategy with all of our products and brands, as it continues to be a very effective tool for engaging with our customers.

Of course you can take it as a polite way of saying "Facebook ads don't work". Or you could take it as a way of saying "we're trying something else to save money and that was bottom of the list". That same guy (before he got fired) also ended their relationship with ad agency Campbell-Ewald [nbcnews.com] , who they'd been using for decades.

And now GM is reconsidering [fidelity.com] their decision to advertise on Facebook. Why would they do this? Because [freep.com] :

"We certainly don't want to walk way from 900 million consumers and we haven't walked away," Perry said. "We're a big proponent of Facebook."

It was certainly embarrassing - disastrous, even - coming on the eve of the IPO, and yes, it's nice grist to the mill of FB bashers. In reality, sometimes things aren't that black and white. Wasn't there a story here the other day where people were fiercely debating [slashdot.org] whether marketing and advertising are just a lot of nonsense anyway, with merely rudimentary metrics?

Re:Poor marketing investment (4, Interesting)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855779)

For firms, it might not be that much of an issue? But what about people who do what they do for fun rather than profit, like popular bloggers? "Pay or your followers may miss your post" sucks for those people. Perhaps FB ran out of ideas to monetize, and use this to shift the burden of coming up with a good way to make money for this kind of stuff to its more popular members.

Re:Poor marketing investment (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855941)

But what about people who do what they do for fun rather than profit, like popular bloggers?

And what about the people who come to Slashdot for fun and knowledge and instead have to wade through reams of astroturf?

Why don't you ask how much it costs to moderate posts to +5 on Slashdot? Microsoft and Burson Marsteller should be able to give you a budget breakdown.

Re:Poor marketing investment (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856163)

what about people who do what they do for fun rather than profit, like popular bloggers?

Maybe they should not be trying to get their message out on Facebook. We still have an Internet that allows people to run their own system; it is not as though people have to go through Facebook to get to the websites they are trying to view.

Facebook is a big corporation now, and they need to make money -- which means catering to other big corporations. At least they are becoming honest about why they exist (advertising) instead of continuing to pretend that they are on a mission to connect people to their friends. Popular blogs should look into being paid for advertising impressions rather than clicks as well -- it is a much better model.

Re:Poor marketing investment (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856637)

Yeah...one little problem? Its THAT attitude that killed MySpace. That's the problem all these net firms, FB, Google,Twtter, have in a nutshell in that people can just decide its not worth the bullshit and suddenly there's a new company doing it better and you're the next GeoCities ghosttown. Remember when yahoo was all that and a bag of chips?

They have to walk a damned fine line here because there is zero loyalty on the net, MySpace found that out quick.

Re:Poor marketing investment (2, Funny)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856739)

Remember when yahoo was all that and a bag of chips?

No. And I'm pretty sure that never happened.

Re:Poor marketing investment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40859049)

"Remember when yahoo was all that and a bag of chips?" ...turn in your geek card immediately! (Yahoo? WTF?)

Re:loyalty on the net (3, Interesting)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857317)

I think I disagree, Facebook might be different. Enough raw time has passed so that everyone has at least heard that "it's okay for normal housewives to be on Facebook", whereas I think what did Myspace in was the attempt to be edgy with the Under-25 crowd and bands.

So I think Facebook is becoming the Lock-In of Ordinary Family social media, and if indeed something topples them, it will be business news in the making.

Re:loyalty on the net (2)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859371)

Hmm. I think I've heard this comment before. Usenet, then dialup hubs, then "blogging", then forums, each used to be in this position. They still exist. Yes, these populations were tech savvy and FB is drop-dead easy, but the next product will have to be even easier.

  I can't predict the future, but FB will leak members as the market fragments. Something will eclipse them entirely for it's core featureset, eventually. There's no way commercial companies can compete with the try-anything openness of the general web. Whatever does, it will have to (at least initially) tie-in to FB to bridge the gap. FB itself would dislike this but they may have no choice. Behold the Age of Social-Dashboards.

Re:Poor marketing investment (1)

cwgmpls (853876) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859383)

Which is why, of the companies you mention, Google is creating a hardware & software ecosystem where they can control what ads you see, and what data they collect, directly on your device. Apple and Amazon are doing the same. If Facebook doesn't get into the platform game, they are going down the same road that MySpace, Yahoo!, and several others already traveled. Microsoft, on the other hand, is getting by with fat profits from its legacy enterprise products, so I'm not sure they have the chutzpah to really engage in the consumer space, even though they keep throwing dollars at it. Sorta like IBM 20 years ago, right?

Re:Poor marketing investment (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856675)

Agreed, and I certainly was not suggesting that Facebook should change their model; they can do whatever they feel best serves their interest. But if popular "amateur" producers of content decide to go elsewhere rather than pay FB to make sure they reach their following, then I expect this policy to hurt FB's bottom line rather than help it, since these bloggers will take their ad impressions with them.

Re:Poor marketing investment (1, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856827)

Even though I get ~1+ million pageviews per month and referrers from numerous outlets, my FB page (with only 280 likes) is the single best referrer each month and has been since the first day I setup the page years ago.

Re:Poor marketing investment (1)

muridae (966931) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857781)

How many of those facebook clicks to your website are people who are actually interested, and how many are bots from facebook simply crawling every link they find?

Re:Poor marketing investment (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40858103)

For this week (week beginning Sunday) Google Analytics says I have 602 referrers from FB. I just did a grep of my Apache logs for Facebook referrers and I get a bit more than that at 784.

A quick analysis of the grepped logs for residential connections (which still could be bots but less likely) and other known real IPs and dropping any records with crawl, bot, etc, etc shows 648 referrers from FB.

Meaningless data really but it doesn't appear to be that many bots.

Re:Poor marketing investment (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856201)

There are plenty of other "options" for people who have a "following". Twitter, Google+ among others. Hey guys, Facebook posts not being seen? Stop using it, as it isn't useful any more.

Re:Poor marketing investment (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856961)

Right now if you post something and one of your followers doesn't bother to look at it, they don't look at it. How is this going to change? It seems like all they're doing with this is highlighting the posts of people or companies that pay, so that the post sticks out more in their followers feeds. I didn't see anything about blocking the posts of people who don't pay. Have you read another article that says this?

Re:Poor marketing investment (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856031)

Yeah but promoted posts are (as far as I can tell) a non-click-through sort of advertising. Much as I criticize Facebook, this sort of thing is a good thing for the web: monetizing by advertisement impressions rather than by clicks is how we should have been doing things in the first place. This is just a fancy form of impressions -- you are pushing your post to the top of a person's view, so that it comes before the posts from their friends etc.

Re:Poor marketing investment (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856923)

Yeah but promoted posts are (as far as I can tell) a non-click-through sort of advertising. Much as I criticize Facebook, this sort of thing is a good thing for the web: monetizing by advertisement impressions rather than by clicks is how we should have been doing things in the first place

Advertising by impressions rather than clicks on the web is what was done "in the first place" (that is, when web advertising was a new market, since impressions are the model used off the web for advertisement, and so it was what the advertising market was used to.)

Taking click-throughs into account was something that evolved as a way to reassure advertising purchasers that what they were paying for was proportional to effectiveness of ads in motivating behavior.

I think that the click-through model can help, to mitigate the tragedy of the commons effect of race-to-the-most-obtrusive between advertisers that comes from trying to maximize per-impression effect when ads are sold in a strictly impression-based manner. Or, at least, it helps get advertisers to buy advertising in venues that restrict the obtrusiveness of ads to avoid that race, because they are paying for measurable effect.

And if you don't mitgate that race, you quickly get to a place where users take more active steps to avoid ads -- whether that means going out of their way to find and employ technical means to strip ads out of the content they receive or whether it means just avoiding using the ad-laden service.

Advertisers may be your customers, and users eyeball-time may be the thing you are selling, but users are your suppliers, and if you forget them in your efforts to maximize the short-term appeal to your customers, you risk finding yourself without any eyeball-time to sell to your customers.

Re:Poor marketing investment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856053)

You mean one firm.

i paid Slashdot $500 (5, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855615)

To get first post. Perhaps I should have paid more?

Re:i paid Slashdot $500 (1)

gagol (583737) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855655)

Go to the firehose, easy to get first post there. Not much people will read it though.

Re:i paid Slashdot $500 (1)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856615)

Go to the firehose, easy to get first post there. Not much people will read it though.

"Much" if you can't count it; "many" if you can.

Sorry, but I've been going over this again and again the last couple of days. With my 4 year old.

Re:i paid Slashdot $500 (1)

gagol (583737) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857187)

You are right, thank you ver many for the cue ;-)

Re:i paid Slashdot $500 (1)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858081)

Alright, that's it! You go to timeout! ;)

Re:i paid Slashdot $500 (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855703)

maybe, considering you're second.

if the users want to see your post they're going to see it anyways, I don't see point in paying for the placement - it interferes with what the users want to see anyhow.
suppose people are fanning forbes - and these are the people it should be shown anyways to - shouldn't they get to see forbes posts because they're already subscribed to it? and they are seeing it anyhow, provided that it gets liked by their friends and/or they don't have gazillion liked pages so that their feed is spammed already.

so an entity like forbes might want to do this for one story per year, spamming it weekly or daily will not have any effect anyhow.

Re:i paid Slashdot $500 (2)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855849)

suppose people are fanning forbes - and these are the people it should be shown anyways to - shouldn't they get to see forbes posts because they're already subscribed to it?

They should, but they don't. Not anymore anyway. I've personally verified that -- it's not about my feed being too full, there are times when nothing hits my feed for an hour or two even though when I actually go to pages I'm subscribed to, they're making posts during the time. I believe it's a recent change where Facebook only shows the most popular posts from a page you subscribe to unless they pay to have others promoted.

Re:i paid Slashdot $500 (1)

o_ferguson (836655) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855717)

You got ripped off.

Re:i paid Slashdot $500 (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855987)

You should have paid $501...

RSS (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855649)

RSS is sill used by a huge number of people, and the same kind of paid postings can happen there as well, although their visibility is the same as any other item. Also, in terms of advertising, it seems like a pretty good deal.

Re:RSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855823)

RSS beats Facebook any day.

Re:RSS (1)

Kergan (780543) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859051)

RSS beats Facebook any day.

Who uses RSS? In all seriousness...

RSS support has not been left out of iOS for as long as I've been using an iDevice (Mobile Safari's RSS reader is a farce). And I vaguely recollect reading that neither Mail nor Safari support it in Mountain Lion. How much lower on the consumer's radar can anything get?

The few people I know who actually use RSS feeds do so only through Flipboard and similar Apps or (in the case of internet marketers) as a data source for spammy activities.

Facebook trounces RSS any day.

You've got to be joking! (1)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855657)

I often wondered why fb wouldn't allow user preferences to control their timeline. You are right. It is lame.

Ha! The joke is on Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855663)

I've never used facebook or RSS!

Will slashdot pay? (1)

o_ferguson (836655) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855671)

Will you pay so I will be sure to have all your stories on my feed?

after many people lost billions of dollars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855681)

and this is their business plan?

I'm still waiting for my dog food order from the late 90s. Maybe I should track that package now...

It depends on the quality of the views (4, Interesting)

Palestrina (715471) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855695)

Blasting it out indiscriminately, like spammers do, has a very low conversion rate. It looks like Facebook is going for a more targeted model based on what it can gleam from user profiles. But it all comes down to cost per conversion. $500 could be cheap, if your post is promoted to the right audience. This remains to be proven, of course. But I wouldn't automatically say that the price is too high.

Re:It depends on the quality of the views (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856027)

glean

Are you surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855707)

They have to do something to raise their stock price, everyone who purchased any has already lost over 40% of the value...

Its currently at $20.30....

Re:Are you surprised? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855755)

And on it's inexorable and inevitable drop to $2.30.

Re:Are you surprised? (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855847)

If you are so sure it will drop, make a furtune by shorting the stock.

Re:Are you surprised? (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855905)

The trouble with shorting is that you have to be confident about both the equilibrium state and the trajectory...

Predicting that Facebook is presently hilariously over-valued is easy(and likely correct); but predicting how fast shareholders will give up holding on to hope and/or hype is a great deal trickier.

Re:Are you surprised? (1)

johnjaydk (584895) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856963)

If you are so sure it will drop, make a furtune by shorting the stock.

It's a bit more tricky than that. You pay a fee each month You short a stock in the hope that the stock drops so much that You make up for the fees and make a profit.

This play requires that few want to short the stock (low fee) and that the wait isn't too long (too many fee payments).

So You need to get the timing right about a company that few others have doubts about in order to make real money.

Writing on the Wall (no pun intended) (4, Insightful)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855735)

The writing was on the wall. Everyone saw it coming since FB decided to monetize the site with FB credits, in-app purchases, etc.

Next: for a premium fee, select customers (i.e. advertisers) will be able to publish "stories" (i.e. ads) on everyone's wall, regardless of friendship status.

For a super premium fee, they'll be unblockable.

Re:Writing on the Wall (no pun intended) (2)

Eth1csGrad1ent (1175557) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855867)

isn't this what the "trending" stories already are?

Re:Writing on the Wall (no pun intended) (1)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855877)

But, see, marketeers have discovered that people who are interested in your products are actually better to advertise to per marketing dollar spent. I'm not saying that facebook won't shit on everyone's wall and call it wallpaper, just that there's not as much money in it as there is in the ads to "fans".

Re:Writing on the Wall (no pun intended) (1)

DeathToBill (601486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855913)

"The writing was on the wall." Really. Can't decide if this was unconscious or deadpan at its best.

Re:Writing on the Wall (no pun intended) (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856141)

When you invest in a company, that capital goes to expanding the business including hiring new employees. Those employees also have to be paid with a reoccurring stream of revenue. Obviously. So it comes to no surprise that FB is expanding above and beyond its original scope. What's next? Facebook tablet (yet another device)? Facebook phone? Oh, how about Facebook teeshirts, mugs, special blended coffee. How about a Facebook movie? Oh wait. How about...a Facebook game, religion. How about a Facebook mini TV series. Facebook homes, Facebook ppartments. How about a Facebook bar? At some point, a company such as FB jumps the shark. I say it already happened a long time ago IMHO.

RSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855783)

Did anyone ever user RSS/Atom for syndication? I tried it once, on a number of big-name websites, and was quite disappointed. So I asked around, and couldn't find anyone who actually used it.

Re:RSS (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855925)

Really? I use it all the time. Not with a dedicated RSS reader (I don't know anyone who uses those either, they're all terrible) but with Google Homepage (iGoogle). Hell, even my _mother_ does that -- and she's not the tech-savvy mother type either. Couldn't even set up her email on her iPad without my help.

How do you get news if you don't use RSS? Or do you only read one or two sites? Christ I'd need an extra two or three hours per day if I was checking every site I read individually for anything interesting...

Re:RSS (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855967)

Google Reader here ... it makes reading a ridiculous number of feeds quite manageable. I used to use desktop clients, but they lacked the synchronization of what was read, no matter which desktop you read it on. That's the killer feature for Google Reader.

Re:RSS (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856049)

Yea, I was considering Google Reader, since Google is dropping the homepage in a little while. My problem though is that, last time I checked (IIRC), it didn't sort things by what feed they came from. It was all just one big mass of posts in chronological order -- or I think you could select feeds to view them individually, but only one at a time.

I want to be able to see each feed, separated, simultaneously. The problem is that I have some feeds that only update once every month or two, and might take me a week to get around to 'reading' (for example, I watch 'The Ben Heck Show' and have a feed for his new episodes.) So it's a waste of my time if I have to click through each one of them to see if they've updated recently, but if they come into the same space with every other item I probably won't even see them. And if I do I'll lose them before I get around to checking it out. But I also don't want to just check them once a week or so -- that's why I use RSS in the first place. (Other things, like YouTube, I just check when I'm bored)

Re:RSS (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856145)

You can group and order them as you wish. They can be viewed as one list, one category, or one feed at a time.

Re:RSS (1)

neminem (561346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856207)

Why do you care what feed they came from? I use Google Reader, and it does exactly what I want, which is give me a chronological list of every post made to a source I've subscribed to, that I haven't read yet. If you're reading everything in the list, why wouldn't you see them? And if you're not reading everything, why do you even have the sources you don't want to read everything from subscribed?

That said, the sidebar with the list of all the feeds you've subscribed to, also bolds ones with new content, and puts the number of unread items at the end of their names. So you wouldn't really have to click through everything to read new content organized by source, anyway.

Re:RSS (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856571)

If you're reading everything in the list, why wouldn't you see them? And if you're not reading everything, why do you even have the sources you don't want to read everything from subscribed?

I don't think I have a single feed that I read EVERY story from. I skim the headlines and decide which ones I want to read and which I don't. What I don't want is the Ben Heck episode that was posted this morning to be buried under the 20 slashdot posts I read at work; or a mountain of hack-a-day and boing boing posts that I don't feel like reading today. Most of my feeds post too often to read or even look at ALL of the articles posted, which is why I love iGoogle -- I get the latest 3-9 headlines from every source, all on one page, and I can expand and read the ones that look interesting, then click through if I want to read more. Sure, I probably miss some things, but I figure if they're important I'll see them elsewhere. And with the stories I'm really interested in I get to see different coverage from different sources with different biases and focuses. I have 22 feeds on my Google homepage, and over a hundred combined decent length articles posted every day. I don't have time to read EVERYTHING.

Re:RSS (3, Interesting)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856555)

Check out, and take time to explore, http://www.rssowl.org/ [rssowl.org]

You get an overview of ALL stuff from ALL feeds, or just from invididual categories/feeds you selected (which acts recursively, which is awesome).

Google Reader is a JOKE.

Plus, it's Google, so wtf is wrong with people anyway :P Isn't it enough they have web analytics on every site of the planet, and that that half of the feeds go through feedburner on top of that? Why not at least read the other half of the feeds in peace... ? I don't even read any feeds that are controversial in the slightest, it's mostly webdev stuff, but still, I have principles :/

Re:RSS (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856477)

May I ask why you were disappointed? I.e. what did you expect, what did you get instead?

I use it all the time, it's like email for websites. Thank fuck just about anyone who writes tutorials or articles they really care about uses a blogging system which outputs RSS. When I see a good site I don't bookmark it to revisit occasionally, I subscribe to the RSS feed. I still end up visiting those sites to read the articles as they're actually supposed to look, but at least I don't have to "do the rounds" anymore.

I also intend to use it for my CMS to import stuff I'm posting elsewhere to the web as text/links. Then all that can be distributed to Facebook or whatever via RSS, and more importantly is available with a big fat orange icon on the site itself.

Though I just wish there were more/better RSS reader client thingies. I use http://www.rssowl.org/ [rssowl.org] , and I'm super happy other than with the inbuilt browser, the feeling it could be faster and that development has stopped/slowed down. I'm loving the features, you can do so much with that thing, and categorize feeds so you can keep track of dozens and hundreds easily.

Can anyone recommend good newsfeed readers? I'm sure they're out there, I just don't know 'em..

Also, what's the easiest way to get going to code a cross-platform Qt application? I'd rather start making my own crappy RSS client, instead of just hoping they won't go away. Fuck if anyone uses it, RSS for life! :D

Re:RSS (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856783)

I use it all the time, feeds from /. and various other news sites on my iGoogle home page (which is being phased out, pity, I find it very useful)

The other thing it's exceptionally useful for is embedding content. For example, I run a website for a bar next to a theatre, rather than posting info on all the shows each day I just parse an RSS feed from the theatre, style it to match the website and shazzam, ready made, auto-updating content. Very handy.

Sounds like nothing to me (4, Interesting)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855841)

$500 to promote a post? Of course companies will pony up.

At that rate, $30,000 will get you 60 promoted posts. Say you post twice a day -- and we're assuming that you're not just posting the same thing over and over, here, but you have an actual strategy. $30,000 buys you an ad campaign that lasts an entire month.

Depending how you play it, it beats an ad in a magazine, which could easily run you $30,000 (or more).

Re:Sounds like nothing to me (-1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856167)

Depending how you play it, it beats an ad in a magazine, which could easily run you $30,000 (or more).

Wot's a "magazine"? Is that what Japanese perverts read while riding their bullet train?

Re:Sounds like nothing to me (1)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856415)

Yeah... that's sort of what I was thinking too. If companies actually start taking Facebook seriously (as in hiring someone with a specific job title that involves taking charge of Facebook marketing as a duty), this expenditure would make perfect sense. If you've got to pay a person's salary to go online and interact with potential and existing customers, why wouldn't you invest a little in the "back end" of that strategy too -- ensuring what was posted gets more eyeballs?

My only question would be whether it's priced correctly, and I don't think we'll know until a bunch of companies give it a try and decide it either paid off, or didn't. If they all quit paying after giving it a good try, then FB will have to re-think the strategy. To be fair though, something like this could easily become a "bad value" for a company through no fault of Facebook's whatsoever. Social marketing is different than regular advertising because it's interactive. When you run an ad on television or place an ad in a magazine, it's a simple 1-way communication. Content is presented and the main concern is convincing the viewer to view it. On a social network, the type of responses given to questions and comments posted below the initial advertising/marketing content are often MORE important than the original marketed concept.

Re:Sounds like nothing to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856707)

$500 to promote a post? Of course companies will pony up.

At that rate, $30,000 will get you 60 promoted posts. Say you post twice a day -- and we're assuming that you're not just posting the same thing over and over, here, but you have an actual strategy. $30,000 buys you an ad campaign that lasts an entire month.

Almost any kind of promotion with a credible strategy behind it has a chance of working. FB is where advertisers with no strategy go to capitalize on the supposed panacea of social networking. If this program survives the inevitable avalanche of failures and bad press, it will surely morph into a much more expensive ad placement option for the usual advertising whales.

Re:Sounds like nothing to me (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856787)

Exactly what I was thinking. How much does it cost to buy a single quarter or half page ad in a major newspaper with a PAID circulation of 250,000 to 500,000? Never mind something like the New York Times. Does anyone remember when Firefox was asking for donations so that they could promote the fist major release with a full page ad in the NYTs? I think it cost in the tens of thousands for that. And we're not even talking about the Sunday paper (the big day for newspaper circulation in the United States). For a company this is not a bad price.

Same goes for TV and Radio spots.

And it doesn't impact the less affluent Facebook exhibitionists, small business owners, musicians, etc. who may have a lot of followers. They're not being asked to pay. Only if they want to push their new post into their followers feed instead of letting them come to the trough.

Re:Sounds like nothing to me (1)

Zadaz (950521) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857867)

This will mean that soon most of the posts people see will be promoted posts. (Mom isn't going to pay $200 for her friends to see photos of her darling and Jr. isn't going to pony up so everyone can see how artfully he's skipping class.) This will drive users away, ultimately driving down the value of the promoted posts. Facebook's random post filtering already drives up the noise (I have to post 10x so everyone will see it!) this just amplifies a particular part of the noise, buying the signal that much more.

And this is why IPOs are bad for companies who already have enough cash and no plans. They play to the shareholders and eat the business alive.

The air is gushing out of the balloon (2)

Conspire (102879) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855885)

Well I called FB stock at 10$ by the end of the year. Let's see if I hit the nail on the head.

Re:The air is gushing out of the balloon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856081)

I originally called $14, but I think you're right.

Re:The air is gushing out of the balloon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856269)

sub-10$ FB shares by August 19th is just as likely!

Re:The air is gushing out of the balloon (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856467)

you can still short facebook, it is not done dropping.

Re:The air is gushing out of the balloon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856635)

And I called FB @100 USD by the end of the year. But since I'm not long and you are not short, it really does not matter at all - what so ever!

Re:The air is gushing out of the balloon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857059)

I'm expecting them to level out around $4, or whatever the price would be for a P/E around 13 (generous). No time line though. I think ultimately they'll end up doing an Enron and just making shit up, which in combination with the usual irrationality of the market means I didn't have the guts to try and short anything.

Re:The air is gushing out of the balloon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857533)

$3-$4 was my original target, now I'm thinking $.30-$.40 (as in cents). I have a feeling that a lot of bad stuff is going to be coming out that will cause a major dip.

Re:The air is gushing out of the balloon (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857905)

And I called $9.99. Just remember I called it first!

Re:The air is gushing out of the balloon (1)

SolitaryMan (538416) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858151)

I think long term facebook may turn out to be a good investment. I mean, 1B users are not going to disappear overnight, they have plenty of time to figure out how to monetize, or their long-term strategy for that matter. Most likely, Zuck won't be the one who figures it out, so he will be forced to step down and somebody else will turn it into super profitable business.

May be they will just continue to exist as they are, because after all they are profitable. The only problem is that they won't look cool any more and people may start looking for the next place to nurture virtual sheeps.

It's kind of worth it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855897)

I promoted a post for ten bucks. It was for a score of a trailer I did a few months back. I got 1500 views and lots of likes. It did not make me any money but it did raise awareness. I think targeted advertising is the only way to go when you are talking real money. Promoting a post just makes it so ALL your friends and friends of friends see's it.

Beyond MySpace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855937)

They want to handle all the bands, artists, and comedians and profit to keep their piece of shit spy operations going.

Facebook and Google + are going to be the acid test when it comes to boycotts. I might be able to convince you to stop buying soda with GMO HFCS after educating your ass for 10 years. But can I get you to stop feeding your private information into the spy operations (the invisible dark side of these mother fucking social media sites.) Furthermore won't it be too late?

This latest money bomb theme is targeted at bands. If your not a band what the fuck are you doing on facebook?

Facebooks one size fits all model (3, Interesting)

N1AK (864906) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856315)

Facebook has a fundamental issue. It has allowed/encouraged users to build a large 'friend' list. This inevitably means that users get overwhelmed; so Facebook does some analysis and tries to cut the chaff and guess what you don't care about seeing. The problem is that with it's tight one size fits all friends model it has a good chance of hiding stuff I do want to see.

We were almost reaching the point where it was normal to announce big events like weddings etc on your wall. Now the people who may have done this are likely going to rely on other communication forms that they know will reach everyone.

Re:Facebooks one size fits all model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40859033)

Weddings have been and are definitely going to be announced on the wall going forward, but they are also formal events that will send out formal invitations.

T-Minus... (1)

Westwood0720 (2688917) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856379)

ETA on FB becoming replaced?

Forced to comment (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856473)

For fear that if I fail to comment on this subject, I'll be automatically labeled a terrorist by Authoritarian Intelligence, I half suspect that facebook can now predict the future of its many children. They will comply. And if they don't, well, they can advertise for free on their wall at Guantanamo bay.
Be sure to "Like" this comment.

Herp! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856485)

But I don't even haz teh Facebookx account because it's evilz.
 
Mod me up now, please.

Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856531)

For the low, low price of $200 to $500 I can be sure all my "friends" know what I had for breakfast. Count me in. Or not.

Bad for advertisers and consumers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856543)

As a consumer, I hate this new "feature". I follow fan pages to hear things companies i'm interested in are doing. When they switched to this model, I stopped getting updates on my feeds from these companies. I started wondering why I wasn't seen notices other people had. Then I found out.

Now I have to go to these pages individually to see things they are doing. It's a giant PITA.

Investors are squeezing (4, Interesting)

supertrooper (2073218) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856563)

Here is what's happening right now. Investors are not happy with poor performance and they are demanding more money. This idea was on a backburner probably for a while, but now that FB is showing not as profitable as they thought it would, they are trying this. They have dozens of other similar ones if this one works. This whole company has this one "product" and nobody saw the risk in that? It was a trendy thing to do, for a while, now it's less trendy, and in 10 years it won't be trendy. Don't get me wrong, I see the value in social networking: stay in touch with friends and family, creep on some hotties every once in a while, maybe read an interesting post here and there. But it has become the biggest shouting match in the world, and it's all nonsense. I don't even notice the ads any more. If somebody is posting too much and it becomes annoying I block their posts. You pay 500$ so your posts come up more often - I will block you. You pay more - I will remove you from my friends. You override that and I will stop using FB altogether.

FTC disclosure (1)

lytles (24756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856603)

not sure if i've ever seen one of these sponsored posts ... does facebook have to disclose that the post is a paid advertisement ?

http://mashable.com/2009/10/05/ftc-blogger-endorsements/ [mashable.com]

Re:FTC disclosure (1)

lytles (24756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856629)

i'm an idiot ... the article says they show up with a "sponsored" tag

work from home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856941)

what Marcus implied I'm in shock that a mom able to profit $9362 in one month on the computer. have you read this web link http://widg.me/NbuKe

Kidding? why not use Twitter Hash Tags then? (1)

Wingfat (911988) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857031)

really now.. dont have to pay to #tag that #FaceBookSucks

Not just fans: Friends OF Fans (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857111)

Sponsored stories might increase placement in the News Feeds of people that are already fans of the sponsoring page, but an important part of their use is that they increase the placement of stories in the news feeds of friends of your fans. When a company pays for these, friends of people who have liked the site, shared the page that is being promoted, etc., are more likely to see an item about the liking/sharing/etc. in their news feed.

Re:Not just fans: Friends OF Fans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40858343)

If the pay to advertize ONLY affected the friends of friends (or followers) I dont think the outcry would be as big. I follow someone because I WANT to see what they post, Not to try and remember which of the many pages i follow so I can check them out to see if they posted something. Pay to target friends of friends, not to target your followers.

Answer (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858553)

Another lame attempt at monetization, or will Facebook users actually pony up?

A lot of column A, and a lot of column B.

Reverse Advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40859025)

I would be $1/mo. on my FB account to NOT see ads.

I know! Charge $10 a month for everyone! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859175)

> This is what happens when everyone stops using RSS/Atom for syndication.

This is what happens when stockholders with pockets $100 billion lighter start asking about return on investment.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?