BrandSavant

Gaining Insight From Social Media Data

The Facebook Flea Market

by Tom Webster on January 2, 2013

Today I logged into Facebook and was greeted with the ad bar below:

FacebookAds

You know it. You’ve seen it. Facebook ads are a junk shop; a seemingly random miscellany of hastily constructed, poorly targeted and (sometimes) vaguely seedy-looking pitches for things I couldn’t even conceive of clicking on, let alone purchasing. I often post a “howler of the day” on my Facebook page (poor Grant has been named before) as a joke, but I think Facebook has a real problem here.

Now, when I point this out, some of you (correctly) rush in to remind me that all of the tools for better targeting are there in Facebook, so yes–it’s not wrong to say that the seething vortex of sin and degradation that is my Facebook ad bar is the fault of crappy marketers, not Facebook.  After all, Facebook knows that I live in downtown Boston (my zip), that I’m married, my age and that I have multiple degrees. So the fact that I continue to get ads for meeting singles, overnight degrees,  American Apparel soft porn and landscaping for my 18th floor “lawn” is surely down to the spray-and-pray tactics of lazy marketers, right?

Well,yes…but allow me to throw two additional spanners into the works, here.

First of all, I do place some responsibility on the shoulders of the advertisers, but not exactly in the way you might think. I’m not sure that lecturing joescrappyonlinedegreefarmandgrill.com is going to have any great impact. But there is one ad in the diorama of failure above, from an advertiser who should know better, that actually does resonate with me–the Sony headphones ad.

I happen to have a headphone “problem” and do, in fact, have a number of Sony ‘phones in my collection. Am I going to click on that ad, though? Of course not. I’m not going to click on it because Facebook’s ad bar is typically such a slough of despond that I have very little sense that my click would go anywhere reputable.

Where you choose to advertise says a lot about your brand, right? If I were launching a new line of vitamins (and let’s face it, why not?) I could advertise in GQ, Men’s Health or “Get RIPPED!” (the latter, hopefully fictional). Now, there are reasons why you might advertise in any of these, but for each you have a sense of not only the content, but also the advertising–your neighbors in the “mall” of that publication. Location, location, location. So the only advertiser I would fault in the ad banner I posted would be Amazon, or perhaps Sony, for choosing to put a booth pitching $300 headphones in the middle of a flea market.

What advertisers like Amazon and Sony should do is hold Facebook’s feet to the fire more on the placement of their advertising. Herein lies the second, and biggest problem–Facebook’s benign neglect of that space. Saying that it’s the responsibility of the advertiser to use that space better is akin to putting the inmates in charge of the asylum.

In the 90′s, I did a ton of research in the radio industry (in fact, if you live in or near a top 50 market, there is a very good chance I consulted at least one station you listened to in that market). We worked very hard on the “pie” of the radio hour–the “clock”, as it’s called. Typically, that clock is about 45 minutes of the stuff you wanted to hear (the music or talk content) and 15 minutes was advertising and promotional messages. ALL of it, however, is “content” to a listener, and all of it was researched and optimized. If you spent thousands of dollars researching the optimal content for a relaxing station, for example, but ran SCREAMING car dealer commercials in between the music, you would essentially be throwing your money away.

Magazines, newspapers, TV networks and radio stations ALL regulate the quality and content of their advertising, and all make choices. If these “heritage” media can do this, I expect the technological sophistication underpinning Facebook to render that a trivial problem. You might (wait for it…) need some humans involved in the process, because to date the machines haven’t proven worthy.

To me, the next step for Facebook is not figuring out how to optimize my friends, or expose me to more branded content. It’s making better use of the space they already have to get me to take action. Facebook has enough information about me to make a pretty good guess about what interests me, and they know me far better than any of the advertisers on my page. If Facebook wants to be the matchmaker for a relationship between me and an advertiser, it seems to me that it’s incumbent upon them, not the advertiser, to make a better introduction.

To me, the opportunity cost of this is a killer. Imagine how powerful Facebook would be if they got this right?

What say you? Am I off base, cranky, or both? The comments are yours.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://socialfreshacademy.com/ Jason Keath

    I see plenty of crappy and untargeted ads on TV, in newspapers/magazines, hear plenty on radio. I think this is a problem with advertising. It is how it works. Throw a bunch of messages at me and one out of a hundred/thousand will stick.

    Also, I can’t wrap my head around the squirrel.

  • http://www.ackermannpr.com/ Shane Rhyne

    I think you’ve hit it fairly well on the head here. Facebook could provide a valuable service to potential advertisers, particularly to those small- and medium-sized businesses who could actually benefit from the targeted ad connections. By doing so, they’d have a better chance of developing an ad clicking audience that would benefit Sony and the others.

    Google was doing this last year by offering thirty days of one-on-one counseling for new individual advertisers. In addition, they’ve developed Google Engage for Agencies to help train agencies how to help businesses better target their Google ads. Facebook would likely benefit from a similar program. Until then, I fear they’re just going to keep throwing up random post promotion schemes against the wall until they find something that might generate revenue.

  • http://stoplookingswan.blogspot.com Eric S.

    I think it’s classic pursuit of a bad metric – clicks (aka CPA). Many of these ads aren’t choosing the best image for the brand, they’re just choosing ANY image that’s so outrageous it captures your eye, and potentially lands a higher number of clicks. In fact, there are whole Facebook ad platforms (like GraphEffect) that spin up thousands of iterations of the same ad and “evolve” the best performers – which often have no benefit to branding whatsoever. By slavishly chasing the click, they’ve forgotten about the impact of branding. SEO, by the way, is finally learning this lesson – studies have shown organic results get a higher # of clicks when the user is exposed to a paid impression. (And I’m still trying to find that study, will post when I do)

  • http://www.edisonresearch.com Tom Webster

    You are right to call me on that, of course-there is no shortage of crappy untargeted ads on TV. But the best shows don’t advertise snuggies–those ads are generally left to syndicated game shows, not Homeland. And you don’t see American Apparel ads during NBC nightly news. Some shows do better, others have to take what they can get. Should Facebook, now used by the majority of Americans, “take what it can get?” Surely they can do better. And yes, you in particular have put out some great resources for marketer to make better use of that space, and I encourage people to visit socialfresh.com to find them. But at some point the warden has to step in before Grant pulls a shiv on that squirrel.

  • Eunice Coughlin

    I agree! I haven’t done any Facebook advertising for a while but when I did, I remember their standards were a bit higher than they seem to be now. In fact, they used to reject my ad photos and for the life of me couldn’t figure out why, they were way better than the spammy stuff they have on there now. There’s definitely a need for more quality control. And yeah, why the squirrel?

  • http://www.edisonresearch.com Tom Webster

    Thanks, Shane! I do think education is part of the package, but Facebook shouldn’t be so passive about it (“here are some resources”) If they managed that space better, with what they know about me, they would be an unstoppable advertising giant.

  • http://www.crackerjackmarketing.com/ Stephanie Schwab

    Great post, as always, Tom. I think the quality of Facebook ads is pretty directly correlated to marketer’s willingness to spend enough money to reach *their* demographic. If a marketer really cares to reach you, the apartment-dwelling married multi-degreed Bostonian, they will spend more per click than anyone else will to reach you when they want or need to. At all other times, the bottomfeeders (likely the people in your ad bar today) manage to scoop up “remnant” ad space at bargain-basement prices with their untargeted ads – a pure scattershot approach, but likely at pennies per click vs. dollars per click of savvy and well-targeted campaigns.

    Did you happen to notice if your ads were better in the 1st two weeks of December, in the peak of holiday shopping season? Or take a look just before Valentine’s Day, and see who’s willing to pay the big bucks then. I find the legit brands come out to play when there’s a lot at stake for them.

    I’m seeing a very similar effect happening with Twitter ads for some B2B clients there, and I know it’s often the same with Google PPC (and late night TV ads, for that matter). Remnants picked up by bottomfeeders.

  • http://profiles.google.com/trappermark Mark Traphagen

    Facebook has no incentive to do what you suggest. If those ads are getting clicks, FB makes money. They don’t care about the advertiser’s results as long as people keep clicking. And as another commenter pointed out, those advertisers aren’t looking at the right metric to even know that they are wasting money.

  • http://www.afmarcom.com/ Angelique

    I decided to do an experiment and see if Facebook could actually “learn” to show me appropriate ads. For a few months I constantly complained about ads that I hated by saying they were “offensive,” “uninteresting,” “spam” or what have you. Facebook DID learn, and for several months showed me decent ads. I didn’t click on them all, but at least the ones that weren’t of specific interest to me weren’t ridiculous or offensive — e.g., an ad for a car that I would like, but I’m not in the market to buy.

    Unfortunately, Facebook has a short memory, and has apparently forgotten everything it learned about me. It’s showing those weight-loss and botox ads again. How did this happen? Did Facebook’s bots hack into my laptop camera, spy on me and decide I’m now fat and wrinkly enough to click? Were they hoping that time would change my personality? Did someone hit the “reset” button for preferences?

  • http://twitter.com/webby2001 Tom Webster

    That’s a lot of work :) Thanks for sharing your experiment!

  • Swebbie

    Honestly, I would happily encourage facebook continue to let scummy advertisements pervade their space. As a recreational facebook user, it’s much easier to ignore the ads when I know to expect total crap.

    So yes, I totally agree with you. Facebook as well as legit advertisers could all reap exceeding benefits from a reworking of their ad space.

  • Swebbie

    The squirrel certainly gets your attention though, doesn’t it. ewwwwww I can’t stop looking!

  • Ally Manock

    Good article….it’s very true, most often the context that an ad is shown in does matter. Consumers have learnt / are learning to ignore the Facebook ads, which includes those in the minority that are well-targeted with a good proposition.

  • http://socialfreshacademy.com/ Jason Keath

    First of all, check with your cable provider. You should not be getting ads during Homeland. =)

    And don’t forget that during NBC Nightly News there are still local TV ads in all markets. And those ads are always pillars of relevance and quality.

    And thanks for the generous plug. Check is in the mail.

    I think your point is sound @twitter-755294:disqus . Facebook should want to encourage better quality and more relevant ads. And I think they have taken several steps to do that. You can flag ads that are not a fit for you, for instance, and this affects what “broad categories” you do or do not fall into. Advertisers can still send badly targeted ads to you, but they have to exorcise a little more stupidity. Facebook has also made their basic ad interface much simpler, moving some of the more advanced tools a few clicks away or to the power editor, effectively putting child locks on the knife drawer. And of course they work very closely with anyone spending around $10k or more to improve their ad efforts.

    At the end of the day, Facebook is a very big place and by my calculations about 80% of all marketing is not very well done. It becomes a numbers game of which Facebook will never really gain full control.

    You will notice that ads in your newsfeed are usually much higher quality and much more relevant. Facebook pushes these sponsored stories hard because of this, they have natural quality checks in place with their engagement algorithms.

    Can they do more? Certainly. Are they doing better than many other advertising platforms in the great ether of marketing channels available to the public? Definitely.

  • http://twitter.com/creativeoncall Chuck Kent

    Cranky, yes. Right on target? You bet.

  • CB

    I think your comments are spot on. My sentiments when glancing at the ad side bar have been exactly the same as yours. So the question I have is, how do we get this message to anyone who can make a change? It seems to me that talking among ourselves about these issues does little to ameliorate them. Did you send your article to Facebook? If so, why not include that address for all of us? Thanks for bringing up the issue.

  • Hugo Guessit

    I have played with the ads a little and have seen the ads change briefly but as noted by another commenter, they came back after a few weeks. More annoying than the side bar of garbage ads are the “Sponsored Post” that now appear in with the status updates of our friends and pages we have Liked that we WANT to keep up to date on (those have now been largely removed from our wall and relegated to our Pages Feed.) When I reported them as offensive, I got feedback from Facebook that these ads did not violate their terms of service and therefore wouldn’t be removed. So, my next move has been to start clicking to hide them. This only seems to keep them off my wall for about a week, then they mysteriously unhide.

  • Ewan McCowen

    Nice post. This topic is also a personal bugbear of mine. I turned off Adblock Plus a few weeks ago (out of a sense of misplaced guilt; an online advertiser blocking ads!) and have been horrified by the results. There’s no excuse for it! In my opinion, ads should not just be the vehicle that keeps FB free. They could (and should) actually enhance the whole experience.

  • http://www.swordandthescript.com/ Frank Strong

    Tom, I don’t think you dispelled the “it’s not Facebook’s fault” mantra in your conclusion. In fact, I think you support it. I’m a little dense, forgive me, but what is it you want Facebook to do? They know you — they know me — what should they do?

Previous post:

Next post: