| 3:29 am on Jun 14, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Hmm, does anyone think Like count affects algorythmic search?
Why more actions than clicks?
[edited by: Chicago at 3:33 am (utc) on Jun 14, 2012]
| 3:30 am on Jun 14, 2012 (gmt 0)|
What is the value of a Like? Were these Likes even relevant? Do they count toward anything?
Is anyone studying this stuff?
| 2:29 am on Jun 23, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Of the 735 likes how many bought something, that is the question.
| 5:21 pm on Jun 23, 2012 (gmt 0)|
>>Of the 735 likes how many bought something, that is the question.
It is a good question for some types businesses, certainly not for all.
A like not a one time event by nature. It offers you access to an individual through ones feed. This ability to reach a like on an ongoing basis has value that extends beyond a single interaction.
| 5:49 pm on Jun 23, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I've given likes to businesses I actually liked but I can't say it's made me buy more stuff from them or interacted more with them.
Speaking just for myself and my situation, what keeps me connected to a business are things like opt-in emails, the promise of a discount, a coupon now and then, private sales, announcements of sales. Articles are of interest to me, specifically ones that discuss techniques or seasonal events. I get an email from a company that not includes offers and new product announcements but also videos and articles. It really gets me to engage with their site much how a Brookstone mall store might draw you in to play with their gadgets.
So for me, getting me to their Facebook page is the start, but liking them should not be the end of the transaction or the goal. Getting me to sign up for something that creates a relationship between myself and the vendor is, perhaps, a worthwhile goal. What do you think?
Behavioral targeting on Facebook seems to be well implemented. I recently found a great business through an interest based Facebook ad. I haven't purchased anything yet, but that's because I'm not ready to buy. But I have certainly been tempted.
| 4:34 am on Jun 24, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Anyone interested in asking any questions? |
I can't ask the question that would help me to know the context. For most FB pages I work with, branding exposure is the best that they can hope for, until they start a localised, short-term campaign, e.g. a charity event.
Both Google and Bing claim to track social signals and Google has several patents where they try to assign a value to the individuals who perform the actions (Edges, I presume, for FB). Since neither have named the networks they measure, we have to assume that they would surely include FB and Twitter, at least.
I see that as a very crude methodology when applied to search rankings. I use consistent identities in various networks, but not a single, unique one. For example, WW is the only place where I am known as anallawalla, so I doubt if that activity helps my rankings anywhere (pretty sure I haven't linked it to Google+).
| 7:58 am on Jun 24, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Of the 735 likes how many bought something, that is the question. |
I have several sites where with lots of likes it is much easier to sell advertising.
5 years ago to get a decent advertiser deal i would have to produce press kit, statistics etc..
nowadays companies approach me, "...we see your site xyz is very active with many likes would you be interested in..."
that never happend before FB, so for me, the more likes the more engagement the better advertising deals...
| 9:28 pm on Jun 24, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Such great points in the last three posts. Old friends.
What is so remarkable to me, is that the points that each of you raise are spot on, but really just the start of the argument.
I have come back to WebmasterWorld nearly six years later because the scope of the changes we are about to see with respect to social signals within all forms of search are so profound.
This particular campaign in question ended with over 3000 likes within 10 days at a cost of 39 cents per like. I had to shut it down.
Is there a reason why one wouldn't want this?
| 9:57 pm on Jun 24, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Why more actions than clicks? |
I think it's because people can click the "Like" in your ad without actually clicking through to the page.
|Is there a reason why one wouldn't want this? |
One reason: if it cost 39¢ per like and those folks didn't (eventually) do something that put the 39¢ back in your pocket.
| 10:28 pm on Jun 24, 2012 (gmt 0)|
perfect, buckworks. nice to see you.
>>I think it's because people can click the "Like" in your ad without actually clicking through to the page.
right. as one sets up a campaign that is driven towards "page likes" and because we are now incurring actions per a default setting "that displays your ad to users who are likely to like your ad".
ok, so what you are saying is that I can run a campaign and aggregate tens of thousands of like, without incurring a click, at an optimized CPM, that is targeted towards specific interest groups and happen to be people who just "like to like".
well its reality. and it is terribly ugly.
and with respect to the later observation, this is what I would offer for discussion:
-a perpetual public endorsement
- a connection to engage with
-potential access to their Likes
- a signal to the algo that informs rank
-a signal that informs another in a buying decision
-a signal of public perception
-immediate marketing message response
-incentive for content/promotion creation
- potential for virality
- crowd sourcing
- top of mind for repeat business
- customer listening, sentiment and support
What portions of the above could of been achieved by such like aggregation efforts? This is not a black and white proposition.
| 1:17 am on Jun 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
From the advertiser's perspective, one of the biggest weaknesses of Facebook advertising is that there's no way to limit the exposure of your ad other than reducing your budget.
Or if it's there, I haven't found it.
AdWords lets you set limits on how often any particular user will see your ad, and in my experience judicious use of limits makes the ad spend much more effective.
Facebook has controls for users so they can block ads they don't like or are tired of, but from the advertiser's side of things the only way to prevent ad fatigue (and reduced effectiveness) is to reduce my budget.
If I could set reliable limits on how many times a user would see my ad in a given time frame, I could set much larger budgets on Facebook.
But I can't.
Listen carefully ... the sound you hear is Facebook shooting itself in the foot.
| 1:37 am on Jun 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I think Mark and his "associates" problem is that they think that an almost limitless supply of dumb **** users ..means there are also a limitless supply of dumb **** advertisers..
Whilst the former may well be the case..the latter is not..
He would do well to try to cash out at the maximum price via say an IPO, before the second part gets noticed ..and before advertisers and shareholders etc start to ask awkward questions..
| 9:23 am on Jun 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|From the advertiser's perspective, one of the biggest weaknesses of Facebook advertising is that there's no way to limit the exposure of your ad other than reducing your budget. |
We had a similar problem and got around it partially by having daily target groups.
Day 1. New York City female above 30
Day 2. New Yor City male above 30
Day 3. Boston female above 30
| 1:41 am on Jun 29, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Seems like a sound plan to target different demographics on different days of the week.