Local media and Facebook

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Greg

You're counting the comments on your FB page that "didn't feel anything" as "talking about it" and calling that "news." We have different opinions about what constitutes news.

I don't just mean my FB (Facebook is Canadians' #2 most popular website) page, but my private feed, twitter (twitter is the #7 website among Canadians, and Trendsmap has #quake third to #yyj and #malahat in Victoria topics this week), and then talking to people face-to-face and over the phone. Everyone was talking about it. I think that means it's news. The following day, CFAX ran the story all day, and it was among the most-read stories in the TC online edition the following day too. So even the next day when most of us knew it was small with no damage, people were still interested in it.

[Plain Jane]

Facebook may be the #2 most popular website but it is a different website for each of its members. I never saw the I heart posts that you made and I am a member of your page. If I relied on your page for news I guess I would have remained in the dark. Now that I think about it I very rarely receive updates from your page in my feed likely because I'm interested in one out of every dozen posts that you make every day. Somehow Facebook knows this and chooses not to display most of the content you post (recently none at all).

PS is it even within the rules to operate a Facebook page with so many blatant advertisements? It is against Facebook's rules to have an avatar as an advertisement and use the large backdrop image as an advertisement, which you are doing. I wouldn't be surprised if I heart was shut down at some point over this. But then Facebook is starting to lose North American visitors and probably doesn't want to shut down larger pages.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Plain Jane

PS is it even within the rules to operate a Facebook page with so many blatant advertisements? It is against Facebook's rules to have an avatar as an advertisement and use the large backdrop image as an advertisement, which you are doing. I wouldn't be surprised if I heart was shut down at some point over this. But then Facebook is starting to lose North American visitors and probably doesn't want to shut down larger pages.

Facebook is happy with me, I have a direct sales rep. Their concern is keeping eyeballs on the website. My page ranks in the top 5% for "engagement". I also spend almost $1000/month with them (mostly for promoted posts), they also like that of course. My page advertises other businesses just like a Chamber of Commerce site might, or the DVBA, or a shopping mall. If the "ads" attract eyeballs to their ads, promoted posts and sponsored stories, they are happy.

[Mike K.]

This double standard is why so many brands are ditching Facebook. Companies now not only have to spend valuable resources to attract individuals to their Facebook page, if they do not spend money to "promote" their posts within Facebook only a smidgen of their content actually makes it to their fan's feeds.

In other words, companies now have to pay for the sort of exposure they once had as part of their presence on Facebook prior to Facebook going public.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

This double standard is why so many brands are ditching Facebook. Companies now not only have to spend valuable resources to attract individuals to their Facebook page, if they do not spend money to "promote" their posts within Facebook only a smidgen of their content actually makes it to their fan's feeds.

In other words, companies now have to pay for the sort of exposure they once had as part of their presence on Facebook prior to Facebook going public.

We are getting OT now, but yes, they have to pay for space like they have to pay for Google Adwords or banner ads anywhere else on the web.

FB has 1B members, so it's not a bad place to be for the right companies.

[Mike K.]

Through proper SEO there is no need for Adwords or other advertisements unless you are marketing a very specific service or product that would otherwise go unseen without advertising.

Facebook doesn't give companies the option of proper SEO or relevant exposure, you either pay for exposure or you don't get exposure, hence the drift away from Facebook by a growing number of companies.

I am dissatisfied with Facebook's changes as of late. Going public has turned Facebook into a free-for-all of gimmicks to charge companies for services it once provided in return for the growth in visitors and eyeballs for its own ads. Now if you pay for ads you can do no wrong (including changing your page name, a big no-no apparently) but if you don't you better watch out or your page will be shut down from one day to the next. I agree we're OT so I'll stop myself before going any further

[Bingo]

"It's hard to remember a stock opening more hyped than Facebook's when it hit the market in May. The stock began the day worth about $38. Then, after what everyone predicted to be a dynamic day of trading for the social media superstar, it closed at ... well ... about $38."

"It wouldn't take long for the pinstripe-suit types to decide it wasn't even worth that. Facebook's stock bottomed out in September, falling below $18. Since then, it's been steadily rebounding and currently sells for about $28."

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/28/te...html?hpt=hp_c1

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

"It's hard to remember a stock opening more hyped than Facebook's when it hit the market in May. The stock began the day worth about $38. Then, after what everyone predicted to be a dynamic day of trading for the social media superstar, it closed at ... well ... about $38."

"It wouldn't take long for the pinstripe-suit types to decide it wasn't even worth that. Facebook's stock bottomed out in September, falling below $18. Since then, it's been steadily rebounding and currently sells for about $28."

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/28/te...html?hpt=hp_c1

At the risk of staying OT here, it would be hard to remember a company in the history of the world that has as many customers as FB. Oh, hold on, there is none. Who cares about the stock price, (less than 0.03 percent of their clients have shares) the customer base is the largest in the world.

[Greg]

Originally Posted by VicHockeyFan

Everyone was talking about it. I think that means it's news.

This is not and should not be the test for what is "news" for the mainstream media. Otherwise "Bieber updates" would dominate the evening news, and that is not what the stations were granted access to the airwaves to provide. If a lot of people talking about a 3.9 tremor is newsworthy, then the headline I would suggest is:

"Shocking Number of People in Major Earthquake Zone Don't Understand Plate Tectonics"

[Szeven]

Continuing OT, off the top of my head I would bet more people have had a Coke than an FB account...

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Szeven

Continuing OT, off the top of my head I would bet more people have had a Coke than an FB account...

That's might be true. Coke sells me sella about 1.6 billing drinks a day. But worlwide people spend about 20 billion g minutes on Facebook each day.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

Facebook doesn't give companies the option of proper SEO or relevant exposure, you either pay for exposure or you don't get exposure, hence the drift away from Facebook by a growing number of companies.

?

The company, which has its headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., reported that revenue in the (third) quarter (of 2012) grew 32 percent, to $1.26 billion, slightly surpassing analysts’ forecasts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/te...asts.html?_r=0

There is no drift away. Every major company has a Facebook presence.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

This double standard is why so many brands are ditching Facebook.

Which companies have ditched Facebook? I'm not aware of any that have closed their page entirely. Some may have pulled back advertising, but they still operate their pages. There are over 45 million FB pages.

[Mike K.]

Obviously no company will remove a Facebook profile but there's growing disinterest in spending advertising dollars within Facebook. And that's what Facebook Inc. is concerned with and not whether GM has a Facebook page or not.

Zynga is a great example of a fad borne out of Facebook that is slowly disintegrating.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

Zynga is a great example of a fad borne out of Facebook that is slowly disintegrating.

Zynga has 18 offices, revenues of over $1.2B/yr, and its second quarter 2012 revenues were up 30% over the year earlier. You can say it's disintegrating due to their stock price drop, but their profits and user-numbers are pretty decent.

[Mike K.]

Coast to Coast's December 27 show covers the recent Facebook clamp down on pages of alternative news organizations and organizations that report on issues of civil liberties and other topics that can be considered anti-government.

You can listen to the radio show at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEW2awFuBbE

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

Obviously no company will remove a Facebook profile but there's growing disinterest in spending advertising dollars within Facebook. And that's what Facebook Inc. is concerned with and not whether GM has a Facebook page or not.

There is actually growing interest in spending advertising dollars on Facebook, since their ad revenue is up 30%.

Facebook Inc. IS interested in GM having a FB page, because it brings eyeballs to the site, and they see ads.

Look, FB can't just be one big commercial, nobody watches the "24/7 commercial channel" on TV (if there was such a thing). They go to TV for nice content (TV shows) with ads between, and FB has to be wary that its users also want good content. So they are very keen to see GM and Lady Gaga active on the site.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

Coast to Coast's December 27 show covers the recent Facebook clamp down on pages of alternative news organizations and organizations that report on issues of civil liberties and other topics that can be considered anti-government.

You can listen to the radio show at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEW2awFuBbE

And likewise ABC or HBO doesn't allow TV shows, or commercials that show graphic abortion medical procedures. I don't know why FB has to be held to some higher free-speech standard, they have every right to choose what their website features. I mean, your standards here are stricter than FB - witness pictures on my page that were reported numerous times to FB (51 times) on Christmas Day, and one of those photos I posted here. FB allowed them, they are still there. VV pulled the one I posted here for example.

[Mike K.]

You can spin it however you like but for the world's largest website, as you say, to earn $1.2-Billion in one quarter is a testament to the relative poor demand for its commercial services. Organizations are now literally being forced to spend money to promote their posts to the fans they spent money aggregating and while you are free to interpret Facebook's earnings however you wish (as in revenues growing because of more interest, and not forcing payment for exposure that was once free) the facts speak for themselves.

US advertisers are moving away from Facebook after its IPO in May. 80 per cent of advertisers now say that Facebook is less important to them than the rest of the web.
- http://www.zdnet.com/does-facebook-s...po-7000000258/

Dallas Mavericks owner and tech investor Mark Cuban says he’s moving away from advertising on Facebook, according to a report on readwrite.com.

Cuban is unhappy about changes Facebook made in September to an algorithm that determines which messages go to members. The changes have the effect of costing brands more money to get messages to people who already “like” them on Facebook.
- http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell...cebook-report/

For Zynga, it has come down to this: the market seems to have concluded that the company’s ongoing business is worth absolutely nothing.

This morning, with the stock down another 14 cents, or 4.8%, to $2.81 – a new all-time low – the social gaming company’s market cap has shriveled to $2.14 billion. (Recall that just over a year ago, there was talk that the company might be worth as much as $20 billion.)
- http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavi...othing-at-all/

Zynga is now worth $2.31 or $0.50 less than when the article above was written.

Google's last quarter earnings were in excess of $14-billion, btw.

And likewise ABC or HBO doesn't allow TV shows, or commercials that show graphic abortion medical procedures. I don't know why FB has to be held to some higher free-speech standard, they have every right to choose what their website features.

Facebook's clampdown has nothing to do with abortions. You may be interested in listening to the radio broadcast.

[MarkCB]

Mark Cuban is publicly moving his companies' focus away from Facebook. Link

Oops, I just saw Mike already posted this above.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

Facebook's clampdown has nothing to do with abortions. You may be interested in listening to the radio broadcast.

I know, I'm just grabbing a random, controversial topic to show you that not every media outlet (TV, radio, internet) lets you do whatever you want on it, even if you are willing to pay. So FB is no different in this regard.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by MarkCB

Mark Cuban is publicly moving his companies' focus away from Facebook. Link

Oops, I just saw Mike already posted this above.

I'm also not sure he's the foremost expert on what FB can and can't deliver. I might even suggest that FB might not be the best place for Mavericks fans, if you are trying to convert those fans into seat or merchandise sales. You don't have much to "sell" a Mavs fan that lives in New Jersey. He's also been fined almost $2M for yelling at refs during games. Does that make him a smart businessman? He could have watched from his private box, yelled at the top of his voice - and saved $2M.

[LJ]

I am the first to admit I know very little about FB and use it very little, but my biggest problem is how to find sites/topics etc.

VHF you have a huge facebook following but how do those people find your site. When I do a FB search using "Victoria" as the criteria your site doesn't come up in the first 50 pages or so that I looked at, nor does VV or Skyscraper. I mean the Brazillian community page with 12 followers came up but not you with thousands. What am I not doing?

You see people putting up FB pages for the oddest causes but how would anyone find them randomly without knowing they existed?

Thanks for any tips and Happy New Year to all.

[dasmo]

facebook is just starting to monetize...Google has been at it for years...I think they will do just fine...the platform works, people engage.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by LJ

I am the first to admit I know very little about FB and use it very little, but my biggest problem is how to find sites/topics etc.

VHF you have a huge facebook following but how do those people find your site. When I do a FB search using "Victoria" as the criteria your site doesn't come up in the first 50 pages or so that I looked at, nor does VV or Skyscraper. I mean the Brazillian community page with 12 followers came up but not you with thousands. What am I not doing?

You see people putting up FB pages for the oddest causes but how would anyone find them randomly without knowing they existed?

Thanks for any tips and Happy New Year to all.

Good questions. Most fans find my page because someone else shared a post on it. I'm a bit hamstrung by my page name when someone does a direct search (the heart symbol plus the "downtown" in my name). BUT, I do my best to get linked by other pages, and that's when you get good growth. I mean, you can say it's hard to find me, but I get 600 new fans every month. I wish I could get more. But I get more than any other Victoria page, just with my linking strategy, which might be more important than my search results.