Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Facebook Advertising Social Networks The Internet Technology

Mark Cuban: Facebook Is Driving Away Brands — Starting With Mine 299

Posted by Soulskill
from the monetizing-your-eyeballs dept.
concealment sends this quote from an article at ReadWriteWeb: "Tech billionaire and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban says he is fed up with Facebook and will take his business elsewhere. He's sick of getting hit with huge fees to send messages to his team's fans and followers. Two weeks ago Cuban tweeted out a screen grab of an offer he'd received from Facebook. The social network wanted to charge him $3,000 to reach 1 million people. Along with the screen grab, Cuban wrote, 'FB is blowing it? This is the first step. The Mavs are considering moving to Tumblr or to new MySpace as primary site.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mark Cuban: Facebook Is Driving Away Brands — Starting With Mine

Comments Filter:
  • by game kid (805301) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @03:58PM (#41972357) Homepage

    Congratulations, Mr. Cuban! Facebook now considers you not just a product, but an actual user/venture-capital source!

  • That is cheap (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Billly Gates (198444) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @03:58PM (#41972361) Journal

    And effective too with marketing. $3,000 might seem expensive for us but if you have million fans and make hundreds of millions then the fee is a drop in the bucket that will generate far more revenue than spamming people for tickets and events.

    • Re:That is cheap (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jellomizer (103300) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @04:10PM (#41972561)

      Compared to most other forms of Mass Marketing this is a rather fair deal.
      Say you get 1% to respond of one million that is 10,000. If your product has $0.30 in profit then you break even. But who has $0.30 in profit, For a cheap product you usually get at least a few bucks out of it. So you pay for you Marking Cost. You could try the competitors and you may get a smaller rate, however you will not reach as many people.

      • Re:That is cheap (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rtfa-troll (1340807) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @04:32PM (#41972899)

        Compared to most other forms of Mass Marketing this is a rather fair deal.

        Right; but it shouldn't be compared to "other forms of Mass Marketing" for several reasons.

        • because this was a free service, which was marketed as a free service and then changed
        • because in this case we are talking about people who voluntarily chose to connect to a company to get all it's messages
        • because this direct connectivity as in Google+, Facebook and so on is something completely new and different from tradional messaging

        The first; that this is a bait and switch operation, is for me the most important. However even though I feel some sympathy for these people, they fundamentally brought it on themselves and this is a situation where it's the people's responsibility to do something different next time. Never lock yourself in to a computing product controlled by one vendor without a written guarantee of indefinite access to good terms written by a lawyer you can trust. This is something most people knew in the pre-Windows era.

        Compare the diference between what happened when the Gnome Foundation went rogue with the same situation from Microsoft. Gnome replaced Gnome 2 with a completely different Gnome 3 interface which doesn't fit old users needs. Microsoft is replacing Windows with Metro + a backwards compatibility interface which also doesn't fit user's needs. Because the Gnome users have the source code and multiple suppliers, XFCE, Cinnamon and Unity have sprung up as interfaces designed to cater to the needs of users that Gnome 3 doesn't fit for. By the time people are forced to switch they will have a choice which is right for them. Microsoft is going to force people who are locked into Windows to accept whatever Microsoft wants them to accept. Only those people that can switch to OS/X or Linux will be able to escape.

        To achieve the same in social networking, even people who use Facebook need to concentrate on using other solutions wherever they can provide equivalent functionality. Otherwise we all end up locked in.

        • Re:That is cheap (Score:4, Informative)

          by HarrySquatter (1698416) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @05:05PM (#41973351)

          The first; that this is a bait and switch operation,

          No it's not. A bait-and-switch is advertising a product for some price and then when a customer comes you tell them the product is not available and you attempt to sell them something else. Changing a free service to being partially paid-for is not a bait-and-switch.

          • Re:That is cheap (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@g m a il.com> on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @05:15PM (#41973487) Homepage Journal

            This is precisely a bait and switch. You promise a free service, refuse to offer the free service and then demand money for the exact same functionality that was promised for free.

            Combine this with recent accusations that Facebook's feeds have been broken on purpose as of late to necessitate promoting posts, and accusations of click-fraud eating up paid advertising and you have to wonder if Facebook is beginning to shoot themselves in the foot. They have tons of users, but they don't seem to know how to monetize that well.

            http://memeburn.com/2012/11/is-facebook-really-broken-on-purpose/ [memeburn.com]

            http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-accused-of-click-fraud-by-advertiser-2012-7 [businessinsider.com]

            • Re:That is cheap (Score:5, Insightful)

              by jvkjvk (102057) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @05:38PM (#41973795)

              So, if you could point me to the contract you signed with Facebook promising you a free service I would appreciate it.

              Otherwise, I fail to understand why you believe Facebook promised you anything.

              They built something and let you use it. Is that what you refer to as a "promise"?

              • Re:That is cheap (Score:4, Informative)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @05:57PM (#41974089)

                No contract is involved (just terms of use), but Facebook has indeed made the promise that its service "is free and always will be."

                http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/09/facebook-will-always-be-free-company-says/ [go.com]

              • Bait and switch is not concerned with contracts. If I own a `tobacco' shop, and I advertise in Stoner Weekly a 99% off sale on bongs, then when customers start showing up, charge them full price, I am committing fraud. Does Facebook advertise itself as free, then charge you? That would be bait and switch. Climb down from your ivory tower and recognize that people live in a real world and your purely academic distinctions are meaningless (and wrong).
      • by Dahamma (304068) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @07:27PM (#41975209)

        Except it wasn't a product, it was just a random post to the Mavericks page. Facebook basically wanted to charge him $3000 to bypass their "spam filter" so it went to the top of everyone's news feed.

        They claim they "It's Not A Shakedown - We're Trying To Fight Spam" but SPAM is unsolicited junk email. When you specifically choose to follow a page you are signing up for whatever posts they make to the page. And what's even worse is Facebook provides a way for someone to choose what types of posts they see in this case, *unless* Facebook gets paid in which case they are explicitly encouraging the spam...

        But hey, it's their service and it's free and ad supported. They have a right to do things like this to make money, and if you don't like it the appropriate response is to stop using the service, as Cuban has done. That and bitch about their hypocrisy and apparent redefinition of "spam", which is more satisfying but usually less productive (unless you are a billionaire who influences purchasing decisions for dozens of companies... in which case bitching is both satisfying AND productive!)

    • Re:That is cheap (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @04:11PM (#41972589) Journal

      .3 cents per person is really pretty cheap. Somehow telemarketers stay in business, and they're paying someone $8/hr to make what 20 calls an hour? If it's not worth .3 cents per person to contact them, you probably have no actual business contacting them at all.

      • by bfandreas (603438)
        It also is a good BS filter.

        It makes you think twice about sending that "lulz! hug U! luv Marky" message you feel the urge to share with the world. A million of interested leads(they actually opted in with the semi-soundness of mind that's required for Facebook) has got to be worth something.

        Remind me: I've heard the name before but what is he supposed to be selling? I'm too lazy to look him up on Wikipedia. I've lost track of dotcom millionaires.
        • by Trilkin (2042026)

          Mavericks-related merchandise probably. All you had to do was read the first few lines of the summary to see that he's the owner of the Mavericks and he's talking about their Facebook page.

        • Re:That is cheap (Score:4, Insightful)

          by JaredOfEuropa (526365) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @06:56PM (#41974865) Journal
          Really? I am not overly impressed with the quality of messages I get from the people who are paying for the privilege, on any medium or platform. That sort of content is called "advertising", and it sucks anytime.

          It's not bad that FB wants to charge a wealthy commercial party to reach millions of customers, but it is bad that they broke the notification system itself in the process... Nonprofits or even people who happen to have a lot of followers also have to pay up, or their posts won't reach all of their followers. And if you follow someone, you might not get to see all of their updatess either unless they pay up.
      • Re:That is cheap (Score:5, Interesting)

        by _xeno_ (155264) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @05:26PM (#41973625) Homepage Journal

        .3 cents per person is really pretty cheap.

        Is it? If you read the actual article, Cuban's complaints seem to be that there are extra costs not included in that figure. Part of his problem is that they had to advertise for Facebook to drive people to their Facebook page in the first place. So there's already money invested which should be taken into consideration as part of the "cost per person."

        He also points out that since it's variable and on a per-post basis, it's basically impossible for them to plan ahead - they can't say "OK, we're dedicating $100,000 this year to our Facebook budget" and then choose when and what to post based on that, as the price per post can change. He also seems to suggest that this actually increases the costs, as it adds a new layer of accounting for every post.

        I find that second argument to be the most persuasive. If the cost per post really does change and budgeting really is impossible, then yes, that's definitely a problem and one that Facebook should fix. He seems to be OK with the idea of paying Facebook, but he wants the costs to be known ahead of time and paid up front, rather than on a per-post basis.

        Cuban also appears to be betting that, since they have to advertise to get people to the Facebook page in the first place, he can advertise their Twitter feed and get people to follow that, instead. That way their upfront costs would remain the same, but they wouldn't have extra unexpected and unknowable costs in the future. I'm not sure I entirely believe this, but if he's right and it's their advertising that's driving people to their Facebook page and not Facebook as a platform itself, then why should he pay Facebook extra for the privilege of needing to advertise for them in the first place?

        Of course, I suppose we'll only find out if he's right in a year or two, after he tries out moving to other platforms. I'm not so sure he is, but then again, I never "liked" any businesses on Facebook in the first place.

      • Re:That is cheap (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 (641858) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @05:27PM (#41973637) Journal
        These are people who have already opted in to receive messages from you. A fair comparison is people who have subscribed to your mailing list, RSS feed, or whatever. If it's costing you three cents per subscriber to your mailing list, then you're probably doing something wrong.
    • Re:That is cheap (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @04:13PM (#41972621) Journal

      While I have no pity for Mr. Cuban(Oh, sure, facebook is just going to suck up the hosting bills for your web page and messaging system forever, for free...), this may well signal that Facebook has an actual problem...

      If somebody who is, and has, actually run businesses and made money, and so forth, and is facebooking for commercial purposes is willing to throw a little tantrum in public about the price, this suggests that they don't think that facebook is worth what it is charging(or they do; but are willing to piss off a valuable communications channel over $3k). That would be bad for facebook. If you are an advertising vendor(which they are attempting to be, in this case) and a potential account laughs in your face, walks out, and then publishes an open letter mocking your offer as insultingly expensive, that isn't a good sign.

      People whining about having to pay for things is largely irrelevant. People who are accustomed to paying for things refusing to pay for your product? That should make you nervous. Facebook has proven that people will flock to them at the $0 price point; but they have yet to do much testing of the demand curve at higher costs. If it turns out to be extremely elastic...

      • Re:That is cheap (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Billly Gates (198444) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @04:20PM (#41972715) Journal

        Well if companies stop using them then FB will respond by lowering their prices. That is capitalism 101. Advertising and marketing aint cheap.

        I do respect Mr. Cuban. I watch him on sharktank and out of all the clueless MBA morons, he knows his stuff and is intelligent and very hard working to make sure his clients are happy and performing well.

        It is true I read Ford was paying $1 million for advertising on FB with full page ads. That is crazy, but if you think about it more eyeballs look at FB than TV without DVRs in 2012. If that $3000 per tweets for a game represents just a 10% increase in sales that can pay for itself easily!

        If Cuban does not think that is fair he can fund another FB startup.

      • It's starting to turn me off. Somewhere in the scheme of things it decided that I was a smart and wealthy individual and must want the new Samsung S3. There is a massive banner ad on my facebook page and all over the android app.

        No. I don't care about the fucking S3. Move on. Now it's starting to show me that my 'acquaintances'' liked Walmart or Levi. Wouldn't I like to like them too?

        No. Sweet Jesus. It's turning me off where I'm ready to move my stuff. Problem is I'm an amateur photographer. I have close t

    • by scottbomb (1290580) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @04:14PM (#41972631) Journal

      This is true. I've worked in advertising and $3000 ain't bad. Sounds like a temper-tantrum to me.

      "The Mavs are considering moving to Tumblr or to new MySpace as primary site."

      That's like going from primetime TV to midnight re-runs.

      • by bfandreas (603438)

        This is true. I've worked in advertising and $3000 ain't bad. Sounds like a temper-tantrum to me.

        "The Mavs are considering moving to Tumblr or to new MySpace as primary site."

        That's like going from primetime TV to midnight re-runs.

        Hasn't baseball moved to midnight reruns by now? Also there is a new MySpace? What happened to the old one? I suddenly feel really out of touch with stuff that really doesn't interest me. I shall put an appointment in my next weeks calendar and agonize a full second over his woe, grief and doom.That poor, poor man who's relevance had eluded me at the moment I hit the submit button. Also: Rich guy billed by FB. News at 11.

    • by Albanach (527650)

      Will it really? It will be hard to monetize a lot of those fans because they may not be close to the team. Contacting your one million followers twice a week will cost you about $300,000 a year.

      So assuming you can make money from 5% of your followers (50,000) you need to make $6 profit from them that you wouldn't otherwise have made for it to be profitable.

      Given they have contact details and probably an email address for the fans who are most likely to spend money, I'd expect the 5% figure is actually very

    • Re:That is cheap (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Nikker (749551) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @04:46PM (#41973099)
      You may not be taking into account that each company will send at least one posting a day but most of them are just basic updates to keep the company name fresh in their heads. If (in this example) you have 1M followers and you send just one update per day $3000x30 = $90,000/month or $1,095,000 a year just to send one message a day to people who have already shown interest in what ever you happen to be babbling about. So compare this to Twitter where I can send verbal diarrhea all day long for next to nothing and we now have a supply/demand curve. So while overall you're spending roughly $1/follower/year(for only one post/day) when you compare it to twitter you start to see that you can engage your fan base (not necessarily your customer base) in a much more responsive manner. You can try out different tactics and see what fits. If you blab too much people will stop listening (not following) you, if you get it right you will attract more attention and followers.

      So as the rhetoric goes the market will work its self out as we see today with Cubans $0.02.
      • So compare this to Twitter where I can send verbal diarrhea all day long for next to nothing and we now have a supply/demand curve.

        Thus is revealed Twitter's forthcoming business plan.

        • Apologies for replying to my own post, but I think I may have been a little *too* cryptic.

          What I mean is that we all know Twitter can't keep on keepin' on as they have been. Limiting the extent of a user's tweets to some determined-by-proprietary-algorithm subset of followers would be the first step. The second step would be a fee to make sure a tweet reaches x number of users. The more followers a user/brand has, the more money to reach that brand's followers.

          This seems like sound business sense to me.

  • by InvisibleClergy (1430277) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @04:01PM (#41972395)

    ...is that Facebook is actually having to deal with the consequences of their shady shenanigans!

    • by c0lo (1497653)

      ...is that Facebook is actually having to deal with the consequences of their shady shenanigans!

      Somehow I don't believe FB has something like this in their minds. More probable: new shady shenanigans for cash.

  • Cuban is bluffing... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @04:01PM (#41972403)

    Seriously, MySpace?!

  • Not a bad deal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @04:01PM (#41972413)

    1,000,000 users / $3000 = $0.003 per user

    • by EMR (13768)

      1,000,000 users / $3000 = $0.003 per user

      1,000,000 users / $3,000 = 333.333333333 users per dollar.

      $3,000 / 1,000,000 users = $0.003 per user :-D

    • by rockout (1039072)
      You're off by a factor of 100, but still, 30 cents is pretty cheap.
  • by zill (1690130) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @04:02PM (#41972419)
    MySpace will charge you $3,000 to reach all 10 people who are still using MySpace.
  • But (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @04:04PM (#41972451)

    He has no quarems with his $60 million private plane that generates no ROI. But $3,000 that generates more revenue?! Outrageous!

    • If you read further, he's upset that it seems like the price varies and is per post. He'd rather just pay a monthly fee and post as much as he wants.

    • Re:But (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @05:02PM (#41973317) Journal

      He has no quarems with his $60 million private plane that generates no ROI.

      A private plane doesn't have to generate revenue.
      Commercial or private, air travel costs time and money.
      If you can reduce travel time and turn it into working time, that can be enough to tip the cost:benefit ratio in favor of a private plane. /.ers make the exact same argument about IT every day:
      It costs money, but it makes everyone more efficient, which generates revenue, which justifies the expense of IT.

  • MySpace? (Score:5, Funny)

    by hduff (570443) <hoytduff@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @04:07PM (#41972487) Homepage Journal

    So the Mavs will be offering nude player pics and I-Pod playlists?

  • by c0lo (1497653) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @04:07PM (#41972495)
    From TFA

    Facebook constantly tinkers with EdgeRank to make it more effective, says product manager Will Cathcart. The algorithm change in September was a bigger change than usual, Cathcart says, but its goal was simply to cut down on spam in people's news feed.

    FB: "Unless you pay for delivery, we'll be fighting your spam".

    End result:
    * the "network socialite" doesn't actually "socialize" anymore - it's advertising
    * the others will still be served spam

    Must be that FB is really desperate for revenue.

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      Of course, I find it amusing that FB is more than willing to inject ads into people's FB page ... so I can only assume those people are paying.

      They're also likely getting met with "WTF is this crap doing on my Facebook page".

      I'm kind of hoping Facebook really starts to piss off people and we see an end to this whole social media craze where everybody wants everything to work like Facebook. Even stuff internal to companies is moving in that direction, and it isn't as useful as the people pushing for it like

      • by cripkd (709136)
        Facebook doesn't inject ads into YOUR facebook page.
        The newsfeed is not YOUR page, the PROFILE page is and they are not adding ads to that.
        The newsfeed is just what it sais, a list of "news" from the sources you chose, kinda like choosing a tv channel and watching their news. Where they inject ads into your... time spent there.
        • by gstoddart (321705)

          The newsfeed is just what it sais, a list of "news" from the sources you chose

          Except they've started injecting ads into the middle of the news feed from sources I didn't choose. Not in the side bar, but in the stream .. listed as "Sponsored" with a prominent "Like this page" button.

          But, that's OK ... my experiment is deciding for myself if Facebook sucked or not is almost complete, and I'm coming down on the side of Facebook Sucks.

  • by magic maverick (2615475) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @04:09PM (#41972541) Homepage Journal

    I don't understand why companies and individuals with a "brand" are so willing to put that brand behind Facebook's. E.g. webcomic artists who say, "see this Facebook exclusive comic", or companies that have Facebook exclusive deals. They should be using Facebook to drive people towards their primary site, not use their primary site to drive people towards a third party who doesn't really care about them, and that may disappear within the year (or whenever a new website comes up).

    So all these brands that are on Facebook and not pushing people off Facebook are doing it wrong.

    • No one really wants to browse a corporate site unless they are applying for jobs.

      I think $3,000 is a great deal for NBA fans who are looking for Maverick tickets. Same is true with selling custom merchandise. People like to read things that interest in them in their facebook unlike common disruptive advertising we do not give a shit about. If we didn't care we would not have liked it etc.

      The facebook likes increase means you can market to a greater audience. If you people just went to your regular website t

      • Take comics. I'm visiting websites for these comics every day (or whenever I think a new comic is up, normally when notified by RSS). The best place for me to be notified about a new series, or hell, anything is on the website (linked to from the RSS feed). Hell, do what some of the artists do and just have a "comic" (in the same place as the regular comics) with text describing whatever it is. But want me to like you on Facebook so I can see an exclusive series? Not happening! Multiple reasons, including t

    • Because more "likes" makes the brand stand out more on facebook, and more users find it. Some of those users end up becoming more customers, which ends up in "more profit".

    • Facebook is a great 'buzz' generating tool... especially if you are willing to put some money into it.

      Yes, drive the traffic to your site as many Corps do (a good example is 7-11 or Subway)... they offer contests and post them on their facebook pages and market the hell out of it (not just on facebook), in order to:
      1) gather your information (through the contest signup) in the event Facebook does fall off the face of the planet and market research and
      2) keep their brand on your mind

      The customer thinks "Ooo!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I think he's confused over the dynamics at work here. The fans aren't on Facebook because the Mavericks are there, the Mavericks are there because that's where the fans are. Moving to another service isn't really an option.

  • Then he would be beholden to no one (except maybe google).

    • by tgd (2822)

      Then he would be beholden to no one (except maybe google).

      A billion users on Facebook happened.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @04:54PM (#41973195)

        A billion users on Facebook happened.

        But 950,000,000 of those are fake and 49,000,000 of the rest haven't logged in for six months.

        Facebook is just so 2010.

      • by SeaFox (739806)

        A billion users on Facebook happened.

        An independent site can be visited by anyone with Internet access. This group will always be larger than Facebook's membership. Much larger.
        Why limit yourself?

        • An independent site CAN be visited by anyone with Internet access. facebook IS visited by a billion unique people each month. a huge difference.

  • So Mr. Cuban thinks that if he goes to myspace his fan base will follow? Somehow I doubt it. The reason he is on facebook is because his fan base was on facebook, not the other way around.

    • by tftp (111690)

      So Mr. Cuban thinks that if he goes to myspace his fan base will follow? Somehow I doubt it.

      I'm not a member of anyone's fan base. However if I were, I would easily open a free account with yet another social network to keep track of what's happening with my precious.

      This would be doubly so if the orders to switch come direct from my Gods (such as the people who I am a fan of.) Besides, what fans are pressed for time and cannot be bothered to register at a web site?

  • He is complaining about a $3,000 media buy that reaches a targeted audience of 1 million?
  • The social network wanted to charge him $3,000 to reach 1 million people.

    McBean [wikipedia.org] I mean, Zuckerburg walks away with all the money from the Star Bellied Sneetches!

  • by fredmosby (545378) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @04:19PM (#41972709)
    I don't go to Facebook to see advertisements. So obviously I'm not going to switch to a different service to see his ads.
  • by coastal984 (847795) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @04:21PM (#41972725) Journal
    Forgive me if I'm incorrect here... But Facebook isn't trying to charge him to post on his page with 1 million fans; Facebook is trying to charge him for "promoting" [read: advertising] his post more prominently in peoples timelines and around the site. I don't have a problem with this. You let Facebook's news feed dynamic work for free just like everyone else, your you pay up to reach others. Why is he pitching such a hissy fit over advertising not being free?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by buchalka (416106)

      Forgive me if I'm incorrect here... But Facebook isn't trying to charge him to post on his page with 1 million fans; Facebook is trying to charge him for "promoting" [read: advertising] his post more prominently in peoples timelines and around the site.

      I don't have a problem with this. You let Facebook's news feed dynamic work for free just like everyone else, your you pay up to reach others. Why is he pitching such a hissy fit over advertising not being free?

      Facebook are now charging you to get access to your own fans per post, this is not extra advertising. Whenever you post something on facebook only a small subset will get your content injected into their news feed unless you cough up the extra money so that more/all of them see it.

      This is something they only added a few months ago. They want to charge this every time you post as well.

      So I don't blame him for getting a bit upset at least here as this is something that facebook have taken away e.g. it was

      • by cripkd (709136)
        Are you sure you don't mean that facebook will ask for money so that your post stays longer and higher on people's newsfeed?
        So now my posts won't reach all my 150 friends you're saying? Is this documented somewhere?
        • by buchalka (416106)

          Are you sure you don't mean that facebook will ask for money so that your post stays longer and higher on people's newsfeed?
          So now my posts won't reach all my 150 friends you're saying? Is this documented somewhere?

          This applies to pages e.g. fan pages that you have Liked and followed. When someone posts something to a fan page, everyone who is following that page does not automatically get the content in their newsfeed. You can see this if you have a page as it shows you the coverage. Facebook give you an option to "pay for more coverage" e.g. let more people already following you see your content.

          For your own posts to your friends I am not sure about that. I believe they might all get it. Not 100% sure.

          Cheers

          Ti

          • by cripkd (709136)
            I always thought that the Get More Coverage option meant that people that have NOT subscribed to my page will get my post, as an ADVERTISEMENT, based on some algorithm where at least they target people with that interest (as my page).
      • Oh, wow. I was wondering why my news feed suddenly had less spam; the guiding hand of the free market was keeping it away! Thanks, capitalis--

        This seems really strange. "Yes! I am the product, so they have to pay for it."
  • EdgeRank, really? To determine what posts reach which users? So you change 2 letters and you're trying to position yourself as a tech company that uses algorithms to better serve your users?

    On the other hand either Cuban is overreacting or I'm missing something.
    Facebook didn't "asked" for $3000 so that he can message 1mil friends. Facebook proposed that he paid $3000 so that his posts can sit higher on people's newsfeeds, for longer and maybe for people not even on his list. He could have said no and j
    • by RKThoadan (89437)

      It's more than just the newsfeed. I have the newsfeed disabled by browser plugins and always keep my main page sorted by "most recent" but I still don't get all posts from some people/pages that I like. I check several of their walls directly because I genuinely don't want to miss anything they post.

      I do not "like" anything or anyone if I don't want to see everything they post and facebook has royally pissed me off because they think they get to decide what I really like.

      As a side note it also ticks me off

  • How stupid are you in the first place? Your primary "site".. your primary online presence.. should be YOUR OWN WEBSITE. This has been a marketing no-brainer since the mid 1990's. DUH.
  • Commercial users are being expected to pay extraordinarily low commercial rates. Someone call the Wambulance.

  • George Takei has made similar posts. Facebook wants to charge him for the amusing lolcats and whatever else he posts. When he posts about his book? Yeah, then it makes sense to charge him, but for the other stuff? Not so much.

    His current solution was to tell everyone to add his page to their "interests" and then you start seeing his posts in your news-feed again.

    Article about both Cuban and Takei's frustrations [allfacebook.com]
  • This is a good thing. If it's more expensive than other options, then Facebook won't be too ad-riddled for a couple years yet.

  • People pay for things on Facebook? Who knew....course this new strategy by Facebook might have something to do with their stock and trying to prove to investors that can actually generate revenue...
  • Good one.

  • The problem with advertising is, there's just too much. The more there is, the less value it has. To illustrate, what do you think had more advertising impact. . . back when television shows were sponsored by one sponsor, and you heard three ads per hour, all for the same sponsor, or nowadays when there's a five minute commercial break and you go to the bathroom or the kitchen, or browse facebook, and ignore the ads?

    Similarly with online advertising, there's so much of it, none of it makes hardly any impres

  • by seandiggity (992657) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @05:19PM (#41973533) Homepage
    ...is that we will no longer push for fans or viewers because most of them can't afford to watch. Why would we invest in extending our fanbase if we have to lower ticket prices or get rid of exclusive broadcasts? That's crazy."

    Sorry, I must have read the article a bit...differently.
  • And Dish was gonna drop AMC.

  • The Mavs are considering moving to Tumblr or to new MySpace as primary site.

    MySpace? Why don't you just threaten to setup your own geocities website while you're at it? It'll have about the same impact.

Opportunities are usually disguised as hard work, so most people don't recognize them.

Working...