Facebook vs. Google: The Fight for Advertising's Future

July 29, 2009 by Paul McEnany in Advertising (sorta), Social Media, social networking

“Today, the Google-Facebook rivalry isn't just going strong, it has evolved into a full-blown battle over the future of the Internet—its structure, design, and utility. For the last decade or so, the Web has been defined by Google's algorithms—rigorous and efficient equations that parse practically every byte of online activity to build a dispassionate atlas of the online world. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline. In Zuckerberg's vision, users will query this "social graph" to find a doctor, the best camera, or someone to hire—rather than tapping the cold mathematics of a Google search. It is a complete rethinking of how we navigate the online world, one that places Facebook right at the center. In other words, right where Google is now.”

The struggle between Facebook and Google represents some of the same challenges happening in the advertising industry now. Those with the belief that “data is everything” complain that advertising hasn’t yet worked in social spaces, mostly because click through rates are even more terrible than usual and banners are ignored.

Data strives to make things black and white. People make things nuanced and contradictory. But I think Facebook’s struggle should be a guide for many of us working in advertising, whether we’re technically advertising or not.

Those of us that really give a shit about understanding people, the ones who a ren’t likely to buy into the massive new ads from the OPA, those that felt queasy about interstitials even if they did give a higher click through rate, aren’t anti-data. But that data should be used to support our missions, not create them.

A cold-hearted reliance on numbers alone can make you small-minded and myopic. It can lead you to take shortcuts in the name of trial. It can bundle you in short-term success, celebrating fixing the coffee maker in a sinking ship.

Einstein said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” I would venture to guess that he didn’t mean that knowledge is unimportant, but simply a tool to inform and check our creativity, not one meant to dictate each following step.

As I’ve been saying of late. Balance is everything. Data can’t explain meaning. Nor does an insight or an uncovered behavior describe a person in whole. So keep the curiosity and fearlessness of your gut and the layered understanding that data can provide, both tempered by the knowledge the neither are absolute.

“I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.”

-David Ogilvy

Familiar, no?

(background photo via rabinal)

The Zuckerberg Response

December 05, 2007 by Paul McEnany in social networking

It's just hard to be mad at the guy when he writes something like this. This is CEO 2.0, a real person who says he's sorry without blaming anyone else. Nicely done. You can read it on his facebook blog here.

"About a month ago, we released a new feature called Beacon to try to help people share information with their friends about things they do on the web. We've made a lot of mistakes building this feature, but we've made even more with how we've handled them. We simply did a bad job with this release, and I apologize for it. While I am disappointed with our mistakes, we appreciate all the feedback we have received from our users. I'd like to discuss what we have learned and how we have improved Beacon.

When we first thought of Beacon, our goal was to build a simple product to let people share information across sites with their friends. It had to be lightweight so it wouldn't get in people's way as they browsed the web, but also clear enough so people would be able to easily control what they shared. We were excited about Beacon because we believe a lot of information people want to share isn't on Facebook, and if we found the right balance, Beacon would give people an easy and controlled way to share more of that information with their friends.

But we missed the right balance. At first we tried to make it very lightweight so people wouldn't have to touch it for it to work. The problem with our initial approach of making it an opt-out system instead of opt-in was that if someone forgot to decline to share something, Beacon still went ahead and shared it with their friends. It took us too long after people started contacting us to change the product so that users had to explicitly approve what they wanted to share. Instead of acting quickly, we took too long to decide on the right solution. I'm not proud of the way we've handled this situation and I know we can do better.

Facebook has succeeded so far in part because it gives people control over what and how they share information. This is what makes Facebook a good utility, and in order to be a good feature, Beacon also needs to do the same. People need to be able to explicitly choose what they share, and they need to be able to turn Beacon off completely if they don't want to use it.

This has been the philosophy behind our recent changes. Last week we changed Beacon to be an opt-in system, and today we're releasing a privacy control to turn off Beacon completely. You can find it here. If you select that you don't want to share some Beacon actions or if you turn off Beacon, then Facebook won't store those actions even when partners send them to Facebook.

On behalf of everyone working at Facebook, I want to thank you for your feedback on Beacon over the past several weeks and hope that this new privacy control addresses any remaining issues we've heard about from you.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Mark"

The Moveon Hypocricy Moment: The Facebook Opt Out

December 01, 2007 by Paul McEnany in social networking

While I'm clearly left leaning in most cases, MoveOn.org drives me crazy because they turn a reasoned argument into a caricature of itself. It's idealistic positioning without regard for reason in much the same way as the NRA's stance on assault weapons and just about anyone who is against stem cell testing. (How's that for a jaded statement?)

That said, I was pleased to see ClickZ call out MoveOn for its blatant hypocrisy over the Facebook privacy controversy...

One of the key privacy issues for MoveOn, according to the petition group page, is the fact that Facebook's new 'Beacon' ad format automatically shares information about a user's activity gathered on third-party sites.

The text in the group description, presumably written by MoveOn, states, "Facebook says its users can 'opt out' of having their private purchases reported to all their friends. But that option is easily missed."

It continues; "The obvious solution is to switch to an 'opt in' policy, like most other applications on Facebook."

I couldn't agree more! However, an interesting comment on the group wall was pointed out to me yesterday. A member has posted the following:

"Well, I tried to write this yesterday but it looks like it was removed. I'd love to sign a petition, but I am not going to sign something that will automatically subscribe me to moveon.com emails. Sorry."

I took a look at the petition on the MoveOn.org site earlier today. The privacy policy is outlined at the bottom of the page and reads; "MoveOn will send you updates on this and other important campaigns by email. If at any time you would like to unsubscribe from our email list, you may do so."

Sure does sound like an opt out policy, now doesn't it. I'd love to hear their excuse. Thanks to Ryan for the catch.

Facebook "Relents." No One Surprised.

November 29, 2007 by Paul McEnany in social networking

If you've read my post from yesterday, you'll see that I'm calling bullshit on facebook. In my opinion, they're using the privacy issue to leave room for compromise with the ultimate intent of keeping the program in the way they originally intended still intact. And I'm more sure than ever now that one day later the new Beacon has already been rolled out. Either they're the fastest coders on the planet, or the expectation of change was already there, and the work had already been done. The latter makes much more sense.

So Beacon lets you opt out for good (but only on a case by case basis, which still sort of sucks, but is on par with how they handle application notifications), and removes the automatic feed posting of partner purchases by requiring an opt in to post. While it's probably not all the way there, I still think it's a useful program. I like to know where my friends are shopping because it makes it easier for me to find new places. It's that simple. More granular control of the program will be helpful and productive, but I think facebook is probably just taking the baby steps toward what the future of the web will look like anyway.

And honestly, I'd rather those steps be taken by facebook rather than Microsoft, or GE, or the US Government, or whatever. For some reason, facebook's independence makes me feel a little more comfortable with the process.

(and yes, I know microsoft now owns a part of facebook, but I don't think it's enough to consider them the major decision maker. more like an influential bystander)

Mack's got an interesting take on the myspacing of facebook. Although these days it's seems to be just as much the facebooking of myspace.

The Facebook Bait: Using Privacy to Accomplish Goals

November 27, 2007 by Paul McEnany in social networking

Is the new Facebook Beacon platform just a PR move to let them get away with more?

There aren't real problems with the bulk of the program. For both advertisers and the consumers they're marketing to, it makes a ton of sense to use shared data to increase relevant advertising messages in a non-obtrusive way. Everybody wins there. But this shit where companies can add online purchases to your facebook feed without giving you the ability to opt out completely beforehand, and only 20 seconds to opt out after the purchase, is ridiculous. And Facebook knows it. Zuckerberg is his customer base, trust me he gets it.

Just like he got it when they rolled out the feed in the first place. With obvious opt out and privacy issues. And not surprisingly, facebook eventually got what it wanted with the feeds, while the marketplace was quieted because they complained and felt as though they were still heard. The compromise was established. Users can opt out but facebook got the platform it needed to advance its own advertising interests.

And here's round two. Users will be pissed. I'll get emails from MoveOn.org. And the benevolent facebook will add the additional privacy features that they expected in the first place. Advertisers win and the users feel heard.

Friggin brilliant. It's a good platform for everybody anyway (assuming the control stays where we all know it should). Them some smart dudes.

You may have also noted that MySpace rolled out its own feed this week, also. We've got to realize that people put information on their page when they don't mind if other people see it. What's important is that users retain control of the data. Calacanis has more.