|Facebook News Feed Rules Changes Are A Step Too Far For One Business|
| 10:09 am on Mar 31, 2014 (gmt 0)|
I know that many businesses have been getting frustrated over the goal posts being moved.
Of course, taking Facebook's point of view, they are running a business, and it's their service to do with what they wish.
It seems now you have to run an ad, unless you get likes from real friends.
|In a long, funny “breakup letter to Facebook,” Eat24 recounted all the reasons that brands are unhappy with Facebook. The biggest complaint: Facebook has changed its algorithms over the last couple of years to highlight more posts by individuals and bury posts from brands — unless, of course, a brand wants to pay for ads to promote its posts. |
“Truth be told, your actions make us feel like you don’t respect us. Maybe you think our food-related pick-up lines and sexy tater tots memes come out of nowhere, but we spend a lot of time trying to make people happy,” Eat24 wrote. “What do you do in return? You take them and you hide them from all our friends.”
A Facebook spokesman, Brandon McCormick, posted a response on Eat24’s Facebook page essentially telling the delivery company not to slam the door too hard on the way out.
“We used to love your jokes about tacquitos and 420 but now they don’t seem so funny,” he wrote. “There is some serious stuff happening in the world and one of my best friends just had a baby and another one just took the best photo of his homemade cupcakes and what we have come to realize is people care about those things more than sushi p0rn.”Facebook News Feed Rules Changes Are A Step Too Far For One Business [bits.blogs.nytimes.com]
| 4:03 pm on Mar 31, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|Maybe Eat24 is trying to hit the top of the news feed the wrong way. |
My god, does anyone else feel like we just stepped back 10 or 15 years (or was that minutes?) and this company is complaining about Google algorithm changes?
Business changes. You deal or you die. Taking your ball and going home means nothing.
| 6:38 pm on Mar 31, 2014 (gmt 0)|
They ARE responding to changing conditions - by deciding that it's not worth the effort of creating and posting content that nobody gets to see - that effort can be used to better effect elsewhere.
Instead of quietly sloping off, they're making the change in a public way - so it gets talked about and they get some PR and backlinks out of it.
Seems fair enough to me.
| 8:25 pm on Mar 31, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|My god, does anyone else feel like we just stepped back 10 or 15 years (or was that minutes?) and this company is complaining about Google algorithm changes? |
This. Let the irrational Facebook hate begin.
To provide some context, though many frame Facebook's algo changes as a decision motivated by bottom line, that is actually just a bonus.
It had become possible to game Facebook's newsfeed ranking algo. The parallels to search really are amazing. One way to do it was by paying for bogus likes, or simply by running ads in demographics where bots and paid clickers will inflate your likes for free because they basically click on everything. Thereafter your posts would have artificially high newsfeed placement because of the false buzz signals generated by all those fake likes.
The algo changes were a response to this. The collateral damage to a lot of precarious business models is a reminder that no internet company owes you a living. As in search, we can count on gaming to force many algo changes in the future.
| 5:09 am on Apr 1, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Surely people could see this coming?
The difference from depending on Google is that it is not even on your own website, so it is even less under your control.
If you invest in an asset under someone else's control, what do you expect? It is like investing a vast amount of money in improving a rented house and then complaining the owner ultimately benefits.
Business pages were always something that Facebook was going to monetise. Did people really expect free forever?
| 10:23 am on Apr 1, 2014 (gmt 0)|
As with all things that can be purchased the seller wants to make the sale but get the most he can for it. The ad seller(Facebook in this case) knows they have priced things right if they hear complaints about the price but people still buy the ads. It's the same with the price of gas, Gov wants to hear loud rumblings about the high price of gas but also see people still buying it. In this case Facebook drove up the price from free to "must pay" which is always a shock.
If you want to send a message because the price is too high - stop buying.
| 4:07 pm on Apr 2, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|If you want to send a message because the price is too high - stop buying. |
I hear you loud and clear. I just disabled my facebook ads. It's dissapointing spending effort to develop good content when my audience just shrunk.
| 6:57 pm on Apr 2, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|It's dissapointing spending effort to develop good content when my audience just shrunk. |
Your audience probably wasn't real in the first place.
Turns out many of the fake Like services click everything else as well in an attempt to be undetectable so everyone gets an audience while they try to conceal the fraud.
Seems to me Facebook would be better off trying to solve the pay-per-Like fraud problems instead of going all draconian on everyone.
Got 9 minutes to spare?