| 6:29 pm on Nov 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
For many people, FB is the internet.
| 7:48 pm on Nov 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Teach me at statistical terminology: does "25% of pageviews" mean that, of every 4 times somebody (anyone, anywhere) gets online and visits a website (any website whatsoever), one of those four is FB? This sounds utterly unbelievable to me.
| 8:11 pm on Nov 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Shocking - isnt' it Albo.
In March, we reported an important milestone when the market share of visits to Facebook.com* surpassed Google.com*. Since then, we have continued to watch the growth of Facebook.com, which increased 60% from the same week last year and represented 1 in 10 US Internet visits last week.
The amount of content consumption taking place on the popular social network has also grown substantially where nearly 1 in 4 page views in the US took place on Facebook.com for the week ending November 13, 2010. The market share of page views for Facebook.com was 24.27% last week, 3.8x the volume of the 2nd ranked website YouTube.com with 6.93%.
| 8:15 pm on Nov 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Teach me at statistical terminology: does "25% of pageviews" mean that, of every 4 times somebody (anyone, anywhere) gets online and visits a website (any website whatsoever), one of those four is FB? This sounds utterly unbelievable to me. |
You have to separate "pageviews" from "visits". Every time someone clicks "refresh" in their browser, it's a pageview. I know a lot of people who leave a tab permanently open to facebook, and pop over to it every 10 or 15 minutes and click refresh to see if there's any updates.
It's the crack cocaine of the internet.
| 8:21 pm on Nov 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The 1 in 10 number is pretty impressive.
The 1 of 4, not so much beyond what it says about the stickiness of FB.
| 8:22 pm on Nov 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|It's the crack cocaine of the internet. |
I had FB for awhile, and found it utterly boring and pubescent. I reckon it must be a concern for advertising interests, though. Thanks for the education.
| 8:33 pm on Nov 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|...boring and pubescent... |
Which is different from the vast majority of humanity how? (kidding... sorta)
From an advertiser's standpoint, it's a mixed bag. All those eyeballs, but trained to look at that single column of updates. Good advertising on FB can be free - create a brand page and let your most avid fans/buyers do all the proselytizing for you. Or you can pay for ad space in the right hand column, and wonder if people even notice it out of the corner of their eye.
Google is starting to pay more attention to this and realize that Microsoft isn't the competition, it's FB.
| 8:53 pm on Nov 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
In the UK, the figure 1-in-6 has been bandied about in recent weeks.
I wonder what percentage of those pageviews happens on a mobile device?
| 9:09 pm on Nov 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Microsoft isn't the competition, it's FB |
It all depends on how big your definition of the game is. MS is still the competition for search, but if the game is defined as eyeballs for ad money...
|brotherhood of LAN|
| 9:13 pm on Nov 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The idea of a 'page view' on FB seems pretty blurry.
| 9:54 pm on Nov 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
When I used to have a FB account I would do the same thing, just sit there with it open in the background and refresh it throughout the day. The ad effectiveness of such pageviews is of course minimal, but they kept me there all day long!
Which is consequently why I closed my FB account. =)
| 10:03 pm on Nov 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
By the same stats, 75% of all page views are NOT on Facebook...
If I was doing marketing for FB, I'd suggest they use the slogan:
"Facebook, where you can find out what highschool friends from 30 years ago had for breakfast today!"
| 10:07 pm on Nov 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|For many people, FB is the internet. |
It's the AOL of today, a walled garden catering especially for those who get confused by the internet.
Although I get a small percentage of my traffic referrals from Facebook, those users have a higher bounce rate and shorter visit than any other visitors.
In other words they are visitors not worth chasing as they have such short attention spans - or they simply don't understand what to do next when they reach a web site out in the big scary world beyond Facebook!
To a certain extent, putting those sorts of users in their own playpen is good for the rest of the internet.
| 10:49 pm on Nov 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Does Facebook have a strong e-commerce future to leverage from this ? If so , how ?
| 11:02 pm on Nov 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Pageview numbers for FB are obviously high. Just think about all those people flipping through photo albums or jumping from profile to profile wasting time while looking for more pictures to look at.
It's annoying that they keep comparing Google with Facebook. People are on Google with a purpose, but Facebook users are usually on there trying to waste time and keep up with friends.
| 11:07 pm on Nov 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Does Facebook have a strong e-commerce future to leverage from this ? If so , how ? |
Show stuff users wanna buy.
| 11:19 pm on Nov 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Its interesting from an advertising perspective. Ive run socalled targetted ads on FB and the ROI on my investment is 0%.
Thats right - multiple products and low end / high end tried - I lost 100% of my spend - Zero Sales and Zero revisits. I get good sales on the sites I advertised through natural serp listings though.
Now thats not to say others have also had the same - but irrespective of volume of visits and pageviews being impressive - I still perceive the ROI on ad spend would be atrocious.
I want to go back to the days many will remember where we all stuck banners everywhere, eventually that model just died (well - it didnt die but it flopped massively).
The thing about FB ads is they are (to me anyway) nothing more than expensive small banner ads.
Whats better? I dont know - I dont do Adwords PPC anymore either due to margins being too close to the bone for me to be bothered with but I may try some more soon. I cant see myself going back to FB though - it really was bad.
With such massive numbers of pageviews - surely it would be far better for FB if they charged say .0000001 cent a click. (Well you know what I mean - a tiny amount) to get the hoards of advertisers in. But at their current rates and with such dross quality traffic I really cant see how people would stick with them as an advertising platform.
I long for the day when FB comes to me and says - "Hey Mr Advertiser - give me 50% of your Net Profit and you can have all the clicks you like".
Now that would be a revolution in mass advertising - will it happen?
would others want that? I dont know. Just thinkin out loud.
Performance based advertising is the next big thing - but it needs a big hitting site - like FB.
Let me think.
Affiliate model - I the affiliate get paid by merchant a % when I sell his stuff.
Current Ad Model - I pay ad network (goofle say) and get shafted due to silly high costs.
New ad model - I pay ad network when I make a sale.
Does the new ad model exist? Did I miss it somewhere along the line?
| 11:51 pm on Nov 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
MrFewkes: I guess you missed about everything there is to miss...
| 12:26 am on Nov 21, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Performance based advertising is the next big thing |
Isn't that what G calls "smart pricing"?
| 12:36 am on Nov 21, 2010 (gmt 0)|
In my opinion the incredibly fast rise of FB is the direct consequence of html not being taught at primary school.
| 12:47 am on Nov 21, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Facebook is one loop I'm very pleased to be "out of". Never had any interest in it, and we have been blocking their referrals sourcing our images for years.
"Heresy" to you commercial boys, I know.
| 1:17 am on Nov 21, 2010 (gmt 0)|
FB ads really aren't made for tangible products. If you need to generate leads/sign up, or get people to play or install a game, it could work well. Getting users on FB to pay for something is like pulling teeth.
| 1:44 am on Nov 21, 2010 (gmt 0)|
If you, for some reason, doubt these numbers, you can test out the insane number of pageviews that Facebook has. Just set up a CPM ad campaign and watch the pageviews come in. It is somewhat scary.
This test won't give you any idea about the actual percentage of pageviews that Facebook has, but it will make the statistic a lot less unbelievable.
| 2:20 am on Nov 21, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I absolutely believe these numbers. I know people that are completely hooked on facebook. To them, it's almost like their entire purpose on earth hinges on the activity of their facebook account.
I don't have an account myself, but I should probably check it out.
I've been completely turned off by my 40-something divorced sister-in-law that acts like she's in high school, and spends most of her day checking her facebook account. It's like everyone wants a second chance at being in the popular crowd in high school.
| 2:27 am on Nov 21, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Getting users on FB to pay for something is like pulling teeth. |
I also believe this to be true. I've spent a lot of money (my money) advertising and I know the difference between junk traffic and Google's traffic. I could care less if FB's traffic is 1,000 times Google's. Junk is junk. Volume is meaningless. Fortunately for FB, there are investors that have no idea how to advertise on the web and they think volume is meaningful. I'm sorry, but it's not...
I'm eager to see what will happen to FB two years from now - when the ROI on everyone's marketing campaign is near zero.
| 2:44 am on Nov 21, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I'm eager to see what will happen to FB two years from now - when the ROI on everyone's marketing campaign is near zero. |
Unfortunately, the brand marketers probably aren't really measuring their ROI. They just throw their money at the hottest new marketing channel(which happens to be FB right now) and they will manage to come up with some creative ways to justify that marketing spend to their bosses.
| 4:10 am on Nov 21, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|It's like everyone wants a second chance at being in the popular crowd in high school. |
That's a very astute assessment, BillyS. And it might be the key to successful messaging for FB ads, too.
| 7:20 am on Nov 21, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Those stats (and I have no doubt they are at least ballpark accurate) are a great way to build hype and get people to throw investment money at Facebook but by that logic those same investors should start buying up all the wall and floor space in company break rooms and near water coolers for $1000 per square foot with the anticipation that advertisers are going to start spending billions to reach people in these places.
They'll come up with a cost per turn in a conversation, per head nod, hand shake, per chuckle, per mouthful of food or sip of water, per picture shown from a vacation. Unless brand advertisers can come up with a metric or use an existing one (CPM) to justify lofty ad spends, all the activity in the world on FB isn't worth much. That, of course is not out of the question by any stretch of the imagination. When something completely flops in advertising you just come up with a new metric to show that it "works".
Behavioral targeting of banners is one such instance of that. Only show ads to people who have already been to a site (and are therefore more likely to buy anyway) and attribute the sales generated from people who have been exposed to an ad (even if it was at the bottom of the page and the browser may have "seen" the cookie but the person never saw the ad) and all of a sudden you have a meaningless measurement that says you should dump all of your ad dollars into banner advertising! You can fool even the most seasoned "financially smart" CMO when you play with the metrics and measurements!
If all these FB pages views were worth something, then forums would be the most valuable properties on the web and be going public at billion dollar valuations.
| 8:23 am on Nov 21, 2010 (gmt 0)|
>> Does Facebook have a strong e-commerce future to leverage from this ? If so , how ?
Merger with Amazon. Imagine the combination of the two "databases" and reach / frequency.
| This 76 message thread spans 3 pages: 76 (  2 3 ) > > |