from what i understand - if people LIKE your business, then if you make a post it goes onto their newsfeed ... which is ideal if your business is very focused, such as a tv show, pop star niche brand and so on, as your post goes to the people who are going to be interested.
however if you are vast like amazon then most customers are disinterested in a large part of their inventory and universal messages may not appeal... however by sharing something the user then posts this to their wall and effectively shares it with their friends - who are possibly likely to also be interested in the item.
basically LIKES are like building a mailing list.
How 'bout: If you're Amazon, you don't need people to "like" you. You're Amazon, fer hevvins sakes.
topr8 - yes your point stands regarding Amazon. However I dont think it does so regarding other big brands such as Apple which has practically become a religion!
But going back to Amazon - what of other would-be Amazons e.g. bookshops like Waterstones or Blackwell? Still no "Like" buttons on their sites...
perhaps they understand the problems with elevating a potential rival, that is free advertising for another company.
result, one day, the people who come direct to them, might go somewhere elese first
ergo the other company sells your traffic back to you
> perhaps they understand the problems with elevating a potential rival, that is free advertising for another company.
Sorry I'm not with you. I was talking about a company putting a Like button onto their own website - either on the home page or perhaps at the product level...
facebook has almost become a portal to the internet, like AOL used to be. I often see adverts on the telly for a car or a movie that ends by mentioning their facebook page, rather than their actual website.
I know several large brands which see Facebook "Likes" and unprofessional. I guess it really depends on the niche they are in. Large corporations are using "Likes" though so I don't really see the issue.
|elevating a potential rival, that is free advertising for another company |
|mentioning their facebook page, rather than their actual website |
Those aspects have troubled me for a long time.
To me it makes good sense to use FB to drive traffic to one's own website, but not so much the other way around.
It makes me nervous to think of building major company assets in a context that is ultimately controlled by outsiders.
If you can increase your profitability by leveraging activity on third-party sites, do so, but make sure that in the end your marketing funnel will ultimately guide users to YOUR site and YOUR mailing list where YOU are the one in control.
For those of you who don't get it
I have a nice gif for my new site, i'd really like you all to mount this gif/link in a prominent position on your sites template
then , when thats done, you should tell everyone you know to mount my gif/link
> Large corporations are using "Likes" though
> so I don't really see the issue.
Which large corporates are using FB "Likes"?
Almost everyone in sight are using FB shares, but personally I have yet to find any Likes outside of the actual FB site...
"How 'bout: If you're Amazon, you don't need people to "like" you. You're Amazon, fer hevvins sakes. "
I do agree with this to a certain extant - but then - Once you are Amazon you do want to cooperate with something like FAcebook - no ?
The strange thing is that according to this link, https://developers.facebook.com/docs/share/
FB Shares are deprecated (!) in favour of FB Likes.
The bizarre thing is that - as I understand it, a "Share this page on my facebook newsfeed" (preferrably having let me edit what goes out first) is more powerful than the newer but simplistic "Like" funtion that stops you controlling what your friends get sent. (or am I missing something?)
|facebook has almost become a portal to the internet, like AOL used to be |
Yeah, in print, radio and television adverstising some big companies are not even including their own domains but are sending folks to their facebook pages.