Facebook to Change News Feed to Focus on Friends and Family(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Facebook to Change News Feed to Focus on Friends and Family
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/technology/facebook-to-change-news-feed-to-focus-on-friends-and-family.html
122 comments
I still do, but strip away as much of the interface as possible using uBlock Origin style rules, FB Purity, and Newsfeed Eradicator[1].
I use lists extensively to organize friends into groups (work, school, various hobbies). The number of unread posts in a list appears next to it, so I can see the amount of activity in each at a glance instead of endlessly scrolling.
If I really care to see what someone is up to, I just go to their profile.
Maybe it's due to my age bracket (early 20's), but having a an account is a major social benefit and I don't have everyone's email address.
[1] https://github.com/jordwest/news-feed-eradicator - Highly recommend this, it's a great anti-time-waste plugin.
I use lists extensively to organize friends into groups (work, school, various hobbies). The number of unread posts in a list appears next to it, so I can see the amount of activity in each at a glance instead of endlessly scrolling.
If I really care to see what someone is up to, I just go to their profile.
Maybe it's due to my age bracket (early 20's), but having a an account is a major social benefit and I don't have everyone's email address.
[1] https://github.com/jordwest/news-feed-eradicator - Highly recommend this, it's a great anti-time-waste plugin.
Yes. It's still the only decent way to organize a party, group trip to a museum or anything like that - Meetup costs money, Slack costs money or requires a dodgy hack, other groupchat programs are too noisy, setting up a dedicated mailing list or website is too much effort, emails-to-everyone it's too hard to get everyone to add or remove someone from the list.
I put events on there, occasionally a few holiday photos or whatever, and check updates on my commute. I defriend people I'm no longer close to, and hide as much political news as I can, so mainly I see photos, personal-blog-like posts, and events. It's great for short-notice events - if I see someone's going to something cool tonight I can ask if they want to meet up. It's great.
I put events on there, occasionally a few holiday photos or whatever, and check updates on my commute. I defriend people I'm no longer close to, and hide as much political news as I can, so mainly I see photos, personal-blog-like posts, and events. It's great for short-notice events - if I see someone's going to something cool tonight I can ask if they want to meet up. It's great.
Yes. I was out for 2 years, but during this time, I pretty much lost contact with everyone not in my work circle. Even some family members on different cities.
So I got back. I rarely browse the timeline. My phone only has the Messenger installed.
And as I said in an earlier comment, small business pretty much depend on it where I live. People don't browse the web anymore, they just use facebook (and it's sad and pathetic..)
So I got back. I rarely browse the timeline. My phone only has the Messenger installed.
And as I said in an earlier comment, small business pretty much depend on it where I live. People don't browse the web anymore, they just use facebook (and it's sad and pathetic..)
Good for them if true: FB goes back to being user-driven engagement. Getting news from FB would be like getting news from television. Neither reliable nor practical.
IMHO what is likely happening is that FB is trying to change things because of recent world events. I'll admit that I've stopped going to FB often because it's filled with very depressing news events. Some of it comes from pages I follow or friends of mine, but overall it's just filled with depressing content. So perhaps they're hoping the community will post more positive life experiences.
Too late. It used to be cool to post your pictures on Facebook, and now it's cool not to post your pictures on Facebook. The show is over.
My facebook feed has helped me realize how much I hate my friends and family
I get the feeling Facebook is running out of ideas and just rejigger the same thing over and over again. How often had the newsfeed changed? How often for the better?
Anyone else think this is related to the meeting they had with Glenn Beck, et al.?
(disclosure, used to work for GB), but doubtful that changed much. It's likely the fact that feeds have been dominated by published and pirated content for a long time. Individuals are publishing less: http://www.inc.com/jeff-bercovici/facebook-sharing-crisis.ht...
i.e. - facebook wants to be paid by advertisers instead of being a free promotion platform.
Really it makes sense all around though, and you have to wonder what took them so long.
Really it makes sense all around though, and you have to wonder what took them so long.
Lock down the growth first, then charge when it's too painful to give up the attention. If they charge too early, then the little to moderate traffic from FB is easier to give up.
They are already getting money for ads, I don't know why you think they aren't
Free promotion in the sense that you could create a page for a product or company, and be promoted significantly solely by the likes and shares you get.
Ah yes, but those type of posts have been having their reach diminish in the past years
It doesn't work like that for long long time already. For small businesses / pages FB has been very difficult, if not worthless.
This might get me to browse a little bit more. I have about 1000 friends on Facebook but 60℅ of my feed is news from a small group of publishers (ESPN, The Onion, NYT) and ads.
Completely OT and I apologise, but I've just noticed that your "60%" doesn't use the percent sign but instead ℅, a symbol I'd never seen before that appears to be the abbreviation for "care of". I'm fascinated by that -- how did that get there? What kind of keyboard did you use?
You don't want to know! https://xkcd.com/1530/
Huh good catch. Google Keyboard on Android has both symbols and they're only 4 keys apart. I hit the wrong one.
Agree - If I want to learn more about Brexit I go to NYT, WSJ, etc. FB is for learning about old friends' whereabouts, new babies, etc.
Wonder how this will affect the political discourse for the elections this year...
Wonder how this will affect the political discourse for the elections this year...
But your friends are going to discuss current events, because that is what people do.
No, they're not. None of my friends that care about current events really use Facebook, but if I want a picture of a forklift, bacon, or anything else that was on Imgur last week, Facebook is right there for me.
Honestly it's pretty hard do discus Facebook, what Facebook does, what it's used for and how people see it, because it's so different from person to person.
Honestly it's pretty hard do discus Facebook, what Facebook does, what it's used for and how people see it, because it's so different from person to person.
> No, they're not. None of my friends that care about current events really use Facebook
you are really lucky
you are really lucky
Is that because your friends keep resharing posts from those publishers or because you're following the publishers themselves?
Facebook already has tools to hide posts from certain friends or shares of links to certain publishers (click the disclosure arrow in the top right).
I think the basis for all these "post selection algorithms" that people are continually outraged about is the fact that people are completely unwilling to prune their feeds. Then they get overwhelmed with crap posts and complain about how there's nothing interesting. Then Facebook/Twitter try to figure out what people want to see, and people complain they don't get to see everything.
Facebook already has tools to hide posts from certain friends or shares of links to certain publishers (click the disclosure arrow in the top right).
I think the basis for all these "post selection algorithms" that people are continually outraged about is the fact that people are completely unwilling to prune their feeds. Then they get overwhelmed with crap posts and complain about how there's nothing interesting. Then Facebook/Twitter try to figure out what people want to see, and people complain they don't get to see everything.
It's not reshares, it's from the publishers themselves. I must have 'Liked' them at some point.
The thing is I don't want to prune those publishers because if I have to see any non-Friend posts I want to see it from them. But I just wish that real humans were weighted higher than another LeBron story by ESPN.
The thing is I don't want to prune those publishers because if I have to see any non-Friend posts I want to see it from them. But I just wish that real humans were weighted higher than another LeBron story by ESPN.
Smart move by Facebook...though I say that as someone who, when I want the news, I use Twitter or HN, or direct visits to newsites. FB is where I go to keep up with what my friends are doing.
Not so great a move if you're a news publisher who has invested time in optimizing your reach on Facebook, though...
Not so great a move if you're a news publisher who has invested time in optimizing your reach on Facebook, though...
Look at the bright side. If people leave facebook because they don't see friends' and family's photo, but ads and ads and ads, then the number of active users will decline and facebook will eventually become nothing.
This is how Facebook operates. Open up the platform until everyone piles on and basically ruins it, then tighten it back up and start charging those same people to do what they were previously doing for free.
They did it with games (they became basically spam until they locked it down). Then when they opened things up to advertising, you could basically run any ad you want to any offer you want. Then they tightened that down once it got adoption. And now they're going to lock the news feed back down a bit.
It's interesting how well they've pulled this off without poisoning the well and alienating their user base.
They did it with games (they became basically spam until they locked it down). Then when they opened things up to advertising, you could basically run any ad you want to any offer you want. Then they tightened that down once it got adoption. And now they're going to lock the news feed back down a bit.
It's interesting how well they've pulled this off without poisoning the well and alienating their user base.
Personally I've been alienated, and many of my non techie friends have been too, but the network effect is just too strong and pulls you back in when old-so-and-so plans their birthday party or whatever.
That's it. I use it purely for answering invitations to events and a handy address book. Otherwise my social media time is away from FB, though, I still spend time on FB in the form of Instagram.
Interesting. I don't think I've ever used Facebook for anything productive (like RSVPing to something). My newsfeed is a complete and utter wasteland, but there's something interesting and addicting about it. It's like watching a car wreck. It's awful, but you can't look away.
I find Facebook pages visually ugly -- unpleasant to look at at a level that has nothing to do with my opinions about the site.
But that's just me. I find that British tabloids like the Sun look similar -- and they are designed that way to attract rather than repel eyeballs.
But that's just me. I find that British tabloids like the Sun look similar -- and they are designed that way to attract rather than repel eyeballs.
It's not just you. Maybe FB is not an example of brutalist design [1] [2] because it's more polished that true brutalists are. It's just a plain vanilla site. Instead of thousands of different layouts on myspace and even on blogger, it's a one size fit all design. A white and blue page should be enough for everybody, and it seems it is, especially when it has the size of an app on a phone. Remember that the vast majority of its users didn't have any web property before their page and feed on FB. They don't find anything missing.
[1] http://brutalistwebsites.com/
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/05...
[1] http://brutalistwebsites.com/
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/05...
Facebook is overall ugly in appearance with a bad layout, bad column widths, bad fonts, bad font sizes...the list grows. Lot of clutter in a small space is how I see it.
I deleted my FB account several years ago and you'd be surprised how many actually find my email when they want to invite me for something.
If someone can't be bothered to send me an email I'm not too concerned about going to their party.
I never had one, and you'd be surprised how many don't. This has caused me to miss camping trips, parties, dinners, and weddings. Of course it's possible that I'm just such an obnoxious person that nobody wants me around, but if that were the case, I doubt I'd have received such abject and clearly heartfelt apologies from people who didn't invite me to things because I wasn't on their Facebook friends list.
Of course, such apologies always come with the implicit "...but if you don't get on Facebook, it's going to keep happening." I actually started to create a Facebook account, but refused to continue past the point where it asked for my email account credentials in order to construct a friends list from my correspondents.
Yes, I'm aware that's optional and can be bypassed - but when the relationship starts out with a boundary test as blatant and extreme as that, I'm really not interested in hanging around to find out where my new abusive partner is going to decide to go from there.
So I still don't have a Facebook account. As a direct result of this, I also don't have a meaningful social life any more, which is a shame, because I rather enjoyed the one I did have. I'm hardly alone in this. Is it any wonder there are people who want to kill Facebook with a hatchet?
Of course, such apologies always come with the implicit "...but if you don't get on Facebook, it's going to keep happening." I actually started to create a Facebook account, but refused to continue past the point where it asked for my email account credentials in order to construct a friends list from my correspondents.
Yes, I'm aware that's optional and can be bypassed - but when the relationship starts out with a boundary test as blatant and extreme as that, I'm really not interested in hanging around to find out where my new abusive partner is going to decide to go from there.
So I still don't have a Facebook account. As a direct result of this, I also don't have a meaningful social life any more, which is a shame, because I rather enjoyed the one I did have. I'm hardly alone in this. Is it any wonder there are people who want to kill Facebook with a hatchet?
Weddings really? That's sad. Using FB to send out wedding invites seems pretty gauche.
No, using a Facebook friends list as a basis for an invitation list, and forgetting to add in the couple of people you know who aren't on Facebook because you haven't noticed that Facebook has become your address book of record.
It's just not something people think about, and that worries the hell out of me. We've never before seen a world where a single, rather secretive corporation, which has already shown itself willing to experiment with its users' perceptions in order to better serve its own purposes, mediates practically every interpersonal relationship of a significant fraction of the species. When I was growing up, that would've been nothing but fodder for third-rate dystopian sf, and yet here we are.
It's just not something people think about, and that worries the hell out of me. We've never before seen a world where a single, rather secretive corporation, which has already shown itself willing to experiment with its users' perceptions in order to better serve its own purposes, mediates practically every interpersonal relationship of a significant fraction of the species. When I was growing up, that would've been nothing but fodder for third-rate dystopian sf, and yet here we are.
I missed plenty of bithday parties because of facebok. I usually just call and congratulate in those cases, people feel awkward and then say "you need to get on fb". If I do show up after the call it often messes things up, like their plan for some number of seats of something. I thing facebookers perceive non-fakebookers as antisocial. I'm okay with that, I'm also okay that people erode the friendship because I'm not on fakebook, it means you weren't a real friend after all because you weren't also friend on fb, how simple is it really!
They (FB) prey on us with perceived or actual low enough social standing for us to not be found by email.
My email address is so obvious, in fact you can even work it out from my user id, however that still doesn't stop my so-called 'friends' telling me they didn't know how to contact me during my FB detox periods. Some people just don't want the friction that having to actually send an email, brings. Go figure.
I don't view going to parties as a chore, I actually enjoy them - so I don't want to miss out. It's nice to see what events your friends are interested in too.
And for spontaneous events (wanna hang out in the park this afternoon?), facebook group chat is still the common denominator, although that might change with facebook forcing people to install their messenger in order to being able to use it on mobile.
And for spontaneous events (wanna hang out in the park this afternoon?), facebook group chat is still the common denominator, although that might change with facebook forcing people to install their messenger in order to being able to use it on mobile.
From a business point of view that is okay.
You're not one of the users that brings money directly to the fb platform but you help keep the network effect in place.
Obviously Facebook can't be all things to all people, so these types of complaints doesn't really show that Facebook is weak, but rather that it is strong and has a lot of auxiliary users that helps keep core functions valuable.
You're not one of the users that brings money directly to the fb platform but you help keep the network effect in place.
Obviously Facebook can't be all things to all people, so these types of complaints doesn't really show that Facebook is weak, but rather that it is strong and has a lot of auxiliary users that helps keep core functions valuable.
Thankfully facebook events never really took off in my social groups. Currently it's just a couple of Watsapp groups (core friends/activities/classes) and an increasingly daunting email thread for a wedding later this summer.
Although your comment makes me wonder if there is a space for a more specialised 'events' app. Maybe this is where the Google/Apple calendars are vaguely headed.
Although your comment makes me wonder if there is a space for a more specialised 'events' app. Maybe this is where the Google/Apple calendars are vaguely headed.
Strangely, I thought Foursquare with its checkins would add event scheduling (future checkins), but I guess they went a different way.
> It's interesting how well they've pulled this off without poisoning the well and alienating their user base.
Who says they haven't? Just because people endure it for now because everyone else they know uses it doesn't mean they'll all stick around.
Re:ads. So shocked people still bother to buy them at all, seen companies throw 7 figures at it with only a fraction of an investment back from it (1 mil invested got about 80K of product sales IIRC). Always advise wayyyy against it these days.
Who says they haven't? Just because people endure it for now because everyone else they know uses it doesn't mean they'll all stick around.
Re:ads. So shocked people still bother to buy them at all, seen companies throw 7 figures at it with only a fraction of an investment back from it (1 mil invested got about 80K of product sales IIRC). Always advise wayyyy against it these days.
well, they still have well over a billion active users. They've alienated some, but it's barely a blip on their radar it seems.
Facebook did the same with buy more like and promote posts features.
I have written a blog post about it two years ago.
That's why I don't get into their bandwagon as customer anymore.
http://fatihdonmez.me/facebook-marketing-black-hole/
I have written a blog post about it two years ago.
That's why I don't get into their bandwagon as customer anymore.
http://fatihdonmez.me/facebook-marketing-black-hole/
I think of this as their "killing you softly method". If they want to discourage some activity, they don't just kill it outright, instead just slowly turn down the dial on some virality-affecting coefficient.
They've also done it with app developers!
Tech companies have demonstrated over and over that they love to flirt with journalism, but they never want to commit (a notable exception is Amazon's Jeff Bezos at the Washington Post[1]).
I hope this encourages news organisations to disentangle themselves from tech companies as fast as possible.
[1] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/washington-post...
I hope this encourages news organisations to disentangle themselves from tech companies as fast as possible.
[1] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/washington-post...
After overloading the world with information it can't ever process, I don't think either news companies or tech companies know what the fuck they are doing or what they need to do next.
Jeff owns the Washington Post in his capacity as a private individual. It's not affiliated with Amazon at all.
I guess they need to do something to increase engagement because - anecdotally, yes - the amount of sharing and engagement in my feed has dropped dramatically in recent years. A rough guess would be ~3/4 of the content I see now are just likes/reactions and comments my friends made on other content (usually articles or memes). I'm sure most of my friends have no idea I'm seeing this, and if they did they would probably interact with FB even less. I'm very hesitant to interact with FB at all now, and just do a quick scroll through every other day.
Yeah. When you are "friends" with your grandmother, boss, Mary from elementary school and your ex's mother you won't share that much. And those who will share anything in that kind of environment are the people you don't want to hear from ...
Yes, you can group your friends and just share with some of them, but who has time for that?
I'm even hesitant to write anything in semi-open groups as I'm not sure if what I write will show up on my friends wall. It's not like what I'm writing is extreme or private, I just don't need it to be actively shared with all my "friends.
Yes, you can group your friends and just share with some of them, but who has time for that?
I'm even hesitant to write anything in semi-open groups as I'm not sure if what I write will show up on my friends wall. It's not like what I'm writing is extreme or private, I just don't need it to be actively shared with all my "friends.
This^100.
It's interesting that facebook got it initially right, and NEVER implemented 'who's viewed your profile/picture' - as they know that this (possibility of others seeing our actions) would greatly reduce our actions/viewing (us fearing it being visible).
WHILE now, they're not getting it right and publish our actions (likes/comments) like a mad spammer.
It looks like they crossed the border while playing with our curiosity what-others-do, but forgotten that this means, that our actions need to be revealed to others also which will make us reluctant the moment we understand implications.
Snow ball effect to come?
It's interesting that facebook got it initially right, and NEVER implemented 'who's viewed your profile/picture' - as they know that this (possibility of others seeing our actions) would greatly reduce our actions/viewing (us fearing it being visible).
WHILE now, they're not getting it right and publish our actions (likes/comments) like a mad spammer.
It looks like they crossed the border while playing with our curiosity what-others-do, but forgotten that this means, that our actions need to be revealed to others also which will make us reluctant the moment we understand implications.
Snow ball effect to come?
I find that the terminology used also matters in how people know about managing the audience for what they write. In Facebook, you have to create "lists", which nobody knows about and most people don't care to create. In Google+, from the beginning you're told about "circles" (like "friends circle"), which is so easy to understand and also choose the cirles you want to address when publishing posts.
In this regard, Facebook has always seemed like it wanted people to overshare with everybody (it's been proven with its blunders on the privacy front). Now the same overload is causing fatigue among its users (at least to some extent).
I'm frustrated that Google+ has been stagnant like a beta service without new features or even addressing usability issues to make it better for years now (vanity URLs for groups/users - still no; changing group privacy after creation - still no; and many other annoyances).
In this regard, Facebook has always seemed like it wanted people to overshare with everybody (it's been proven with its blunders on the privacy front). Now the same overload is causing fatigue among its users (at least to some extent).
I'm frustrated that Google+ has been stagnant like a beta service without new features or even addressing usability issues to make it better for years now (vanity URLs for groups/users - still no; changing group privacy after creation - still no; and many other annoyances).
This seems to be very much down to disposition
> I'm sure most of my friends have no idea I'm seeing this, and if they did they would probably interact with FB even less. I'm very hesitant to interact with FB at all now, and just do a quick scroll through every other day.
That's exactly how I feel. Facebook shows to me, to the right side of the screen, a feed of all the comments and likes my friends make everywhere on the site, even on pages I don't like or on walls of people who are not my friends. It's like some kind of "spy mode" which makes me reluctant to comment anywhere (what if my friends will read it?).
That's exactly how I feel. Facebook shows to me, to the right side of the screen, a feed of all the comments and likes my friends make everywhere on the site, even on pages I don't like or on walls of people who are not my friends. It's like some kind of "spy mode" which makes me reluctant to comment anywhere (what if my friends will read it?).
same here. It used to be on the right side of the screen only, but now some of them appear on people's timeline as well. If you like someone's recent posts you will start seeing more of what they comment on other random posts. It makes me reluctant to comment anywhere as well because of this.
Psychology says most people get more addicted when ~3/4 of the games played end up with no reward.
Gotta love addiction optimization, one of the many wonderful sciences the modern age has brought us. See also: drop rate optimization in games.
Gotta love addiction optimization, one of the many wonderful sciences the modern age has brought us. See also: drop rate optimization in games.
I found I get a much more interesting "news feed" in the iOS app by searching for "Posts by my friends". Gives you a long scroll view with none of the Pages fluff.
That should be an option on the website as well. I don't care about people comment, shared or re-shared stuff. I just want to see the things my friends post directly. I guess it not really something that Facebook can turn a profit on.
Yeah, at some point my FB feed became dominated by links to other sites, essentially not much different than Upworthy.
Like you, I found myself doing the "quick scroll through" until I finally deactivated my account.
Like you, I found myself doing the "quick scroll through" until I finally deactivated my account.
It was focused on that until they introduced all the features people hate
As someone who runs a niche news site, it's hard to see the point focusing on running a Facebook page anymore. We kind of go through the motions to keep up with appearances, but Facebook is less than 5% of our total overall traffic, and 95% of that portion is all from individuals sharing our content, not from our page directly.
It's just impossible to "bid" on traffic via Facebook and win out over companies that have far bigger budgets, and most importantly feel that eyeballs are far more valuable. A visitor landing on one of our news stories likely is worth less than a few cents. A visitor to a consumer retail site could easily be worth hundreds of dollars. Guess who has the budget to bid big on traffic acquisition here.
There isn't that much real estate for advertisers on FB, and with that it has become incredibly expensive for a media company to grow a legit audience through FB anymore as well.
As a regular FB user though, I think this is an interesting move. I stopped using it to see what my friends are up to long ago as everyone moved to Instagram and Snapchat for their daily happenings. Facebook became a news aggregation service for me, much like Twitter. Might just be my friends, but only a handful are active on the service much anymore with daily updates.
It's just impossible to "bid" on traffic via Facebook and win out over companies that have far bigger budgets, and most importantly feel that eyeballs are far more valuable. A visitor landing on one of our news stories likely is worth less than a few cents. A visitor to a consumer retail site could easily be worth hundreds of dollars. Guess who has the budget to bid big on traffic acquisition here.
There isn't that much real estate for advertisers on FB, and with that it has become incredibly expensive for a media company to grow a legit audience through FB anymore as well.
As a regular FB user though, I think this is an interesting move. I stopped using it to see what my friends are up to long ago as everyone moved to Instagram and Snapchat for their daily happenings. Facebook became a news aggregation service for me, much like Twitter. Might just be my friends, but only a handful are active on the service much anymore with daily updates.
Generally speaking businesses doesn't have to be on Facebook. It was cool and all when Facebook was the new hotness, but at this point it's wasted energi.
The whole idea that "users will engage with your business via Facebook (or any other social media)" is pretty much snake oil. Facebook engages your customer if they can win a price, or they want to complain, loudly and in public. Neither of these things helps your business.
Assuming no click baiting, I would like to see an honest business that could not function, if they where not on Facebook.
The only change I would like to see in the Facebook news feed is the ability to remember that I just want everything sorted by newest first. Perhaps simply the ability to disable "curated feed". My feed is already curated, by me.
The whole idea that "users will engage with your business via Facebook (or any other social media)" is pretty much snake oil. Facebook engages your customer if they can win a price, or they want to complain, loudly and in public. Neither of these things helps your business.
Assuming no click baiting, I would like to see an honest business that could not function, if they where not on Facebook.
The only change I would like to see in the Facebook news feed is the ability to remember that I just want everything sorted by newest first. Perhaps simply the ability to disable "curated feed". My feed is already curated, by me.
Check out the Facebook pages of mom and pop stores, grocers and other local businesses in your area. Chances are you'll see a lot of interaction with loyal customers. Check out the Facebook pages of your favorite musicians, lots of interaction there too. It's not because you don't see it that it doesn't exist.
Agreed. There are some small businesses that will not even answer the phone anymore.. but try sending a facebook message.. almost instant reply.
I hate this, but the fact is that small business depend on that. Facebook almost took over the web for most of my friend circle. they spend their lives there and have difficulty in finding stuff when it's not showing up in facebook search.
And google does not help in some cases, try searching for a product information. the first page is mostly shopping garbage.
I hate this, but the fact is that small business depend on that. Facebook almost took over the web for most of my friend circle. they spend their lives there and have difficulty in finding stuff when it's not showing up in facebook search.
And google does not help in some cases, try searching for a product information. the first page is mostly shopping garbage.
Does that work out for these small businesses? Since I'm not on Facebook, it would make them seem unresponsive to me, and I'd probably stop doing business with them. But even for my friends and family who are frequently on Facebook, almost none of them would think to talk to a local mom and pop shop on Facebook. They would just call. But I'm old, and so are my friends and family, so maybe we're the minority. How common is this?
For very local or niche businesses I would say you're right. It's much easier, and cheaper for them and their customer to just maintain a Facebook page, rather than trying to build a website. I don't see a way for Facebook making money of these companies though. It's the companies that bring the audience to Facebook in this case, not the other way around. Facebook in these cases are just a glorified mailing lists.
For mainstream businesses, like chain supermarket, Coca Cola and car makers, I still maintain it's wasted effort.
For mainstream businesses, like chain supermarket, Coca Cola and car makers, I still maintain it's wasted effort.
> For mainstream businesses, like chain supermarket, Coca Cola and car makers, I still maintain it's wasted effort.
I'm working at one of top digital advertising agencies in EU. National and global brands save no buck on their spending on social media presence, and there are plenty of cheap (for them) tricks that result in both additional sales, positive PR and new customers. We also have strong data to back this up and justify our budgets.
Sometimes it costs real peanuts. Its easy to pump sales for soda brand by going to Snapchat with staged clip going "PEOPLE!!! I WANT TO SEE HOW THIS SODA HELPS YOU BEAR WITH CURRENT HEATS!!!" with people in 13-30 range flocking back with clips of them demoing how soda helps them out stay cool. Then brand gifts dozen or two best submissions and next action ran month or two later attracts 120% the number previous one did, word of gifts and possible response from social media make sure of that.
Whats in for, say, Lidl (large market store in EU), when it gives away stuff to guy who complained to them on twitter that he got diarrhea from expired pizza he bought at their place? It lets them save face, improve recognition of their brand and makes more people bring their feedback, allowing them find potential rotten apples within their chain.
For young peopple especially the fact that large brand @'s them on twitter/face/insta or elsewhere is enough to go nuts, go to store, buy crazy amount of brand's product and then stage some photo or clip alone or with friends. And then there are followers who mimic this in hopes of getting social fame as well.
I'm working at one of top digital advertising agencies in EU. National and global brands save no buck on their spending on social media presence, and there are plenty of cheap (for them) tricks that result in both additional sales, positive PR and new customers. We also have strong data to back this up and justify our budgets.
Sometimes it costs real peanuts. Its easy to pump sales for soda brand by going to Snapchat with staged clip going "PEOPLE!!! I WANT TO SEE HOW THIS SODA HELPS YOU BEAR WITH CURRENT HEATS!!!" with people in 13-30 range flocking back with clips of them demoing how soda helps them out stay cool. Then brand gifts dozen or two best submissions and next action ran month or two later attracts 120% the number previous one did, word of gifts and possible response from social media make sure of that.
Whats in for, say, Lidl (large market store in EU), when it gives away stuff to guy who complained to them on twitter that he got diarrhea from expired pizza he bought at their place? It lets them save face, improve recognition of their brand and makes more people bring their feedback, allowing them find potential rotten apples within their chain.
For young peopple especially the fact that large brand @'s them on twitter/face/insta or elsewhere is enough to go nuts, go to store, buy crazy amount of brand's product and then stage some photo or clip alone or with friends. And then there are followers who mimic this in hopes of getting social fame as well.
I'll assume you're right, because you actually work with this.
A few questions on the Snapchat thing, if you don't mind: Aren't you just "buying" interaction with the prospect of a potential price? Does it actually increase sales figures significantly, long term and beyond the people that participated? Wouldn't the participant have been very likely to buy the product anyway? I mean they already follow the brand on Snapchat.
A few questions on the Snapchat thing, if you don't mind: Aren't you just "buying" interaction with the prospect of a potential price? Does it actually increase sales figures significantly, long term and beyond the people that participated? Wouldn't the participant have been very likely to buy the product anyway? I mean they already follow the brand on Snapchat.
Their participation in activation usually makes some of their followers/friends to try their chances as well (or just buy it to see whats so great about it). Those people will try the product themselves and hopefully some will pick a liking for it and even recommend it further.
Social media is simply new channel in BTL and is important to Brands as they grow the awareness that there's increasing number of people that's simply oblivious to ATL.
As for sales figures, we actually work within targets, sometimes esoteric ones like "get hastag trending on specific day". We also rarely work alone, more often than not being just part of bigger picture happening simultanously. Brand then reviews performance using market research companies or sales figures and tell us results, so its hard to say if sales change would be same or different without us.
As for long term sales, that depends more on Brand's strategy and its reception by the market. Digital is part of this strategy's realisation, but due to nature of the medium, we are playing short game here.
Social media is simply new channel in BTL and is important to Brands as they grow the awareness that there's increasing number of people that's simply oblivious to ATL.
As for sales figures, we actually work within targets, sometimes esoteric ones like "get hastag trending on specific day". We also rarely work alone, more often than not being just part of bigger picture happening simultanously. Brand then reviews performance using market research companies or sales figures and tell us results, so its hard to say if sales change would be same or different without us.
As for long term sales, that depends more on Brand's strategy and its reception by the market. Digital is part of this strategy's realisation, but due to nature of the medium, we are playing short game here.
For mainstream businesses who use branding style marketing; they're used to spending money without much measurable results. I work at a niche yet global business our best use case for Facebook is to be in our niche groups. Combined they're 8-10k users.. we wait for a mention of a issue with our product then fix it privately via messenger.. 90% of the time they get back on the public thread and praise us. It's absolutely priceless as a customer service channel for us.
I definitely agree here and haven't really thought about it, but I couldn't care in the slighest about big brands on Facebook, compared to local businesses where it helpful to e.g know when they run special offers in their store.
^ This. I don't bother with McDonald's Facebook but the theatre round our town that's somehow still operating doesn't have a website, they just have Facebook and Twitter. To small businesses those social networks can be a Godsend. Solid web presence that's stable and gets their name out.
Not to mention you have a bad experience at a mom and pop and post about it on twitter, it WILL get resolved if the owner has even the slightest amount of sense.
Not to mention you have a bad experience at a mom and pop and post about it on twitter, it WILL get resolved if the owner has even the slightest amount of sense.
I help run a site that is completely dependent on links from large facebook pages/groups. Basically because it's almost 100% clickbait with some classic buzzfeed-kind of crap.
This change has potential to bring the income way down from that site.
This change has potential to bring the income way down from that site.
It sounds like you already realize this is a good move for everyone else, it just sucks for you.
Yeah, when even the employees can't resist calling the content 'crap', you know the world is better off without it.
> It's just impossible to "bid" on traffic via Facebook and win out over companies that have far bigger budgets
Yes, impossible on the most broad and least targeted campaigns. But there's almost an infinite amount of targeting that you can do that will allow you to bypass anyone with just a tiny budget. You may just not be aware of the fb ad campaign strategies (and targeting options) that you're able to employ.
Please take the time and watch this video: http://youtu.be/7zcVB-awAM0 He's probably one of the most obnoxious presenters ever, but you'll come to appreciate the world of advanced facebook targeting and figure out a way to utilize it for your content marketing strategy.
Yes, impossible on the most broad and least targeted campaigns. But there's almost an infinite amount of targeting that you can do that will allow you to bypass anyone with just a tiny budget. You may just not be aware of the fb ad campaign strategies (and targeting options) that you're able to employ.
Please take the time and watch this video: http://youtu.be/7zcVB-awAM0 He's probably one of the most obnoxious presenters ever, but you'll come to appreciate the world of advanced facebook targeting and figure out a way to utilize it for your content marketing strategy.
I can second this statement. I run three small webshops, and have found that advertising or page promotion on FB rarely yields any conversions. If you can't afford the big bucks on FB advert placement, you'll always lose out to the big brands. Google Adwords is exactly the same, especially around the holiday season.
Globalisation in the main is a good thing, but what it has also done is push the smaller retailer out of the market.
Globalisation in the main is a good thing, but what it has also done is push the smaller retailer out of the market.
What's your leading source of traffic? Is it Facebook in aggregate, some other site, or variable?
Just because your FB shares don't directly feed your traffic doesn't mean they're useless. You might try A/B tracking on promoting stories through FB or not, and see how they track for views.
(Though I've also had experiences with organic spread of stories -- sometimes something just hits a nerve and balloons.)
Just because your FB shares don't directly feed your traffic doesn't mean they're useless. You might try A/B tracking on promoting stories through FB or not, and see how they track for views.
(Though I've also had experiences with organic spread of stories -- sometimes something just hits a nerve and balloons.)
Today I saw someone spend about 3 hours or more on Facebook (mobile): my new flatmate.
> It's just impossible to "bid" on traffic via Facebook and win out over companies that have far bigger budgets
Not my experience at all. Also, have you seen their hyper-local ad-targeting options? As in, draw circles around neighborhoods, then choose "parents" who are interested in "children's clothing"?
You can easily reach thousands of people with a $5/day budget. They'll even provide the stock photography for free.
Not my experience at all. Also, have you seen their hyper-local ad-targeting options? As in, draw circles around neighborhoods, then choose "parents" who are interested in "children's clothing"?
You can easily reach thousands of people with a $5/day budget. They'll even provide the stock photography for free.
Pretty straightforward goal like others mentioned - de-prioritize publishers, get them pay more to promote their posts, prioritize them back. Nothing has changed, publishers pay more. So much for "focus on Friends and Family".
Most of my "friends" post lots and lots of political annoying rubbish. I hope it doesn't start showing me more of that,
If you click the small Arrow in the top right of a post, there are usually some options to manage that post.
Often, there is "See less of X person", "See less of this kind of post", "Unfolow X person" and other other similar options.
I use it all the time and ended up with a feed that doesn't change much (maybe one new post per day, but that contains content I actually care about.
Often, there is "See less of X person", "See less of this kind of post", "Unfolow X person" and other other similar options.
I use it all the time and ended up with a feed that doesn't change much (maybe one new post per day, but that contains content I actually care about.
It's smoke screen move. FB knows that family and friends emit not enough content to keep us on FB as long as FB would like to.
This is simply to be able to charge companies more for sneaking their content into your so-called FriendsAndFamilyAndHighPaidAdContent.
In other news: Tesla can give you any model you want. If you pay.
This is simply to be able to charge companies more for sneaking their content into your so-called FriendsAndFamilyAndHighPaidAdContent.
In other news: Tesla can give you any model you want. If you pay.
[deleted]
how is this even a news?
Life is easy for 9gag now.
All I want from facebook is a time-ordered list of everything all my friends post.
No filtering, no reordering by 'importance', no weighting by how often I 'like' or respond. No "you clicked off the page and back, we're gonna show you different stuff!".
Just a simple time-ordered list. Apparently this desire is wrong.
No filtering, no reordering by 'importance', no weighting by how often I 'like' or respond. No "you clicked off the page and back, we're gonna show you different stuff!".
Just a simple time-ordered list. Apparently this desire is wrong.
It's not wrong. It just doesn't align with Facebook's business needs
That, and the ability to conceal my birthday from everyone, would go some way towards persuading me to use it.
For the birthday thing:
From your Profile page > About tab, then Contact and Basic Info. Click on the pen icon to edit your birthday and you'll see a dropdown to determine who can see the date and/or year of your birth. I've got mine set to "Only me".
From your Profile page > About tab, then Contact and Basic Info. Click on the pen icon to edit your birthday and you'll see a dropdown to determine who can see the date and/or year of your birth. I've got mine set to "Only me".
Thanks, I didn't realise that it was possible to hide it; if it is possible to conceal both date and year then that leaves only the timeline, sinister data collection and general tediousness as issues.
There'll still be at least one person who knows your birthday already posting on your wall every year...
You can do that, AFAIK. I've hidden mine since I first signed up and it doesn't show it to anyone.
My birthday of FB is both inaccurate and hidden.
A friend of mine got a text that a relative was in the hospital. The first thing she did was post about it in an open group conversation with about 10 participants that she had on Messenger. I asked her about it and she said that the conversation had been open for months and people in her family use it to stay in contact.
I'd never thought of that, but it works and its better for staying in contact than FB's features. It's a Slack-lite.
FB could easily destroy it by putting ads in Messenger, and they probably will.
I'd never thought of that, but it works and its better for staying in contact than FB's features. It's a Slack-lite.
FB could easily destroy it by putting ads in Messenger, and they probably will.
>Apparently this desire is wrong.
Because it's not profitable.
Because it's not profitable.
I too would like that, but with a filter so that I can remove babies, religion and politics.
You can achieve that by using the FBPurity extension!
I think the changes have big effect on Indian Media ,they already lost 100 million page views
http://factordaily.com/indian-news-sites-lost-100-million-pa....
There's also been submissions here regarding Indian media where they've started blocking adblockers.. Maybe there's just a lot of people using adblockers and this is coincidence?
This is hilarious. Wasn't this supposed to be Facebook's original goal until they got greedy and started pushing all sorts of other nonsense to a user's feed? Now they're realizing that that same greed is making them lose users over the long term. Whoops.
Can't help but wonder if this has something to do with the recent allegations against them of having a bias against certain kinds of news.
I am so tired of seeing "things my friends liked" as essentially my only stream of posts. The sponsored posts haven't been too bad, but around 80% of my news feed is "John liked this" (picture of someone I've never met), "Mary commented on an article" (some stupid comment like an emoji), "Sam reacted to a photo" (picture posted by Sam's friend of a friend who again, I've never met). I think in the last week I've seen maybe ten actual posts from friends and thousands of reactions, likes, etc. that i have no interest in.
I would really like an option of hiding "things my friends liked". I constantly click on "Hide this post" to see if the algorithm can learn from that, but it doesn't happen.
Hide the source. "Mary liked this" hide all from HuffPo, "Steve liked this" hide all from Energy Crystals Whatever, "Joe liked this" hide all from Sue McWhoever (you've never met her anyway).
My feed is much more manageable since I started hiding just about all the pages, leaving it pretty much solely picture and text posts of people I know.
My feed is much more manageable since I started hiding just about all the pages, leaving it pretty much solely picture and text posts of people I know.
I'd do that, but it would be a battle fought daily, one at a time, against individual friends of friends you never met... A "Hide all posts from friends of friends" option would be great but not that interesting for Facebook.
It actually is pretty effective. I went through an unfollowing frenzy a couple weeks ago and my feed became far less cluttered since. I'm glad Facebook is making some adjustments, because absent aggressive unfollowing the news feed became even more of a waste of time than it already was.
Facebook tweaks its algorithms constantly. Facebook's algorithms tweak the algorithms constantly. This is just PR fluffery.
I am sure they are making these changes based on their engagement data but ultimately how many of us here believe that their engagement data is really down because some of the activity between friends is happening on Snapchat.
Today people do not even mention it anymore. Wether i meet new people or when i connect with old friends. Facebook disappeared from my life as quickly as it came in.
Do HN people still use Facebook?