Facebook Ads Click-Through Rates Don’t Matter

facebook ads

Nick at allfacebook.com raises some interesting issues about the poor click-through rates for Facebook’s new advertising system. I subscribe to Nick’s blog and had meant to write about this, but appreciate Jeremiah Owyang making Nick’s post part of his weekly digest so it brought it to mind again.

I’m not sure why a low click-though rate on Facebook ads should matter to advertisers, if they are only paying for the clicks.

For instance, I ran a brief campaign in a major metropolitan area and was able to target to a specific age group and communities. For less than $20 I got more than 137,000 impressions and 39 clicks, or a click-through rate of about .03 percent.

But why does that low rate matter? Could I have bought even one 30-second radio ad in a top-ten market for under $20. Not a chance, unless it was a low-power obscure station with 1,000 listeners.

How about a newspaper classified ad? Not likely to get much for a pair of Hamiltons in newsprint, either. I certainly wouldn’t have been able to include a picture.

It’s doubtful I could get a single ad on any TV station, even in a bottom-10 market, for that price.

And if your potential “customers” are not concentrated in a geographic area, obviously national mass media are prohibitively expensive.

For radio and TV there also would be creative costs for ad production, whereas Facebook ads are do-it-yourself.

Which is why I think the advertising that will be successful on Facebook will be more like eBay and less like NBC. It won’t be the huge brands dumping their tens of millions of dollars into buying push advertising. It will be mom-and-pop shops targeting ads to people most likely to need their products and services. And it will be about two-way dialogue, not pushing out messages to amass eyeball counts.

Low click-throughs may not be great news in the short term for Facebook, though, because it only gets paid when someone clicks. But the Facebook management is walking a tightrope in trying to avoid the garishness of the MySpace experience for its users. This leads them to disapprove some ads for the simple offense of one capitalized word in the text.

The new Social Ads system is only a couple of weeks old. I think it’s too early to tell whether big corporations will find ways to use Facebook effectively. They’ll need to invest more in people (staff) to engage with the community and listen to customers, and spend less on just pumping out the mass-media messages.

But for smaller businesses, non-profits and others that haven’t had opportunities for widespread advertising reach based on demographics, I believe Facebook will be a great medium. For organizations that have loyal members or customers, it will be an excellent way to spread word-of-mouth as people become Fans.

And like Craigslist and monster.com, Facebook’s ad platform is one more serious challenge to newspapers as we have known them.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Don’t SHOUT in Facebook Ads

I was surprised today to see that one of the Facebook ads I had created for one of my Facebook Pages had been “Disapproved” with no specific reason given.

This ad has been disabled and should not be run again on the site under any circumstances. Unfortunately we cannot provide you with the specific violations that have been deemed abusive. Please review our Terms of Service and Advertising Guidelines if you have further questions.
The text and/or image of this ad violates part or all of sections 4, 5, and 6 of Facebook’s Advertising Guidelines.

After a little scalp-scratching and review of the ad (see below) and the guidelines,

banned-facebook-ad.jpg

… I’m fairly certain that my capital offense was capitalizing the second YOUR in this sentence:

Remember your special day without limits on how many copies of YOUR photos and videos you can share.

“Abusive” seems a little strong as a description of what I did. But now I’ve changed the language a bit and gone to lowercase, so hopefully Facebook’s inscrutable judges will be apppeased. They haven’t disapproved this one yet.

picture-7.jpg

TechnoratiTechnorati: , ,

Facebook, Txt at U of Minn for Crisis Communications

crisis communications

I saw yesterday that the University of Minnesota had developed a text-messaging system for quick notification of students, faculty and staff in the event of a campus emergency. Then today in my list of Facebook groups recently joined by my friends, I saw that they have a Facebook group for the same purpose.

I think this is an excellent use of technology for crisis communications. I’ve written some ideas about how Facebook could be used, and also Twitter. As Dennis McDonald recommends, you need to have multiple means of spreading the word in a crisis, because no one method reaches everyone. It’s great to see that the University of Minnesota has a comprehensive plan like this.

I think the dedicated text-message service is a really good idea, and may be preferable to Twitter for this application, because it will only be used for emergencies. I’m working with a crisis-planning group, and we’re experimenting with Twitter as a first step for a text-messaging system to alert the core crisis team. It’s a great solution for people who are just being introduced to Twitter and who don’t feel a need follow others’ tweets, because they can link their account with their cell phone, follow only the crisis communications Twitter account and have the notifications set to “on.” They will only get a text message in the event of an emergency.

For me, as someone who is already Twittering and following a few dozen people, having my notifications set to “on” would keep my cell phone buzzing all day. So I typically just check in with Twitter once in a while on the web. I want text messages I receive to be higher-priority and worthy of interruptions (especially since I’m paying for them.) But I haven’t found a way to choose which Tweets I get by text, and which just go to the web feed.

Ideally I would like to just have some tweets come by text (such as those from the crisis management account.) Does anyone have a way around this? I have a couple of ideas:

  1. Can I sign up for another account in Twitter and also link to my same cell phone?
  2. Or can I be selective about which tweets on my main account come by txt?

I would appreciate any guidance on this that anyone can offer, because I would like to have Twitter be the text-notification service for our crisis plan (since it’s free.) But if it becomes more widely used among my non-geek colleagues and they start “following” multiple accounts and not just the crisis account, they may end up turning off the text notifications, which would defeat our purpose.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , , , , , , ,

Being a Facebook Celebrity

Can you be a celebrity without having any fans?

In Facebook, I guess you can.

leecelebrity2.jpg

(Click the thumbnail to see the full-size screen shot, or better yet, click here to see my Celebrity/Public Figure page, in the Writer category.)

I had originally tried a workaround for the personal/professional Facebook separation by creating a group called Lee Aase’s Professional Contacts. Establishing a brand page for your professional persona looks like it might be a better way. People can become “fans” without being “friends.” You don’t have to approve it. You can put your email address on your Celebrity page.

So if you want to put forth a professional representation of yourself, you can. You can upload videos and photos. You can post links to some of your most significant news coverage or blog posts. And you don’t have to worry about the various applications you’ve installed on your personal profile cluttering your celebrity page.

Seeing that Scoble and Jeremiah have fan/brand pages in the Critic and Writer categories, I decided to give it a shot. I looked at the Facebook Terms of Service and didn’t see any requirement for a certain level of notoriety before someone could be a celebrity. So if two of my Facebook friends, Jeremiah and Scoble, can have both user accounts and celebrity pages, hopefully I won’t run afoul of the TOS with my celebrity page.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

IBM: You Won’t Recognize the Ad Industry in 2012

IBM has issued a report that crystallizes and formalizes through survey research what many of us have understood intuitively. It’s called “The end of advertising as we know it.” Duncan Riley pointed it out on TechCrunch late last week, and I’ve just finished reading both the report (get the PDFs of the Executive Summary and the full report here) and the accompanying press release. As the release says:

Traditional advertising players risk major revenue declines as budgets shift rapidly to new, interactive formats, which are expected to grow at nearly five times that of traditional advertising. To survive in this new reality, broadcasters must change their mass audience mind-set to cater to niche consumer segments, and distributors need to deliver targeted, interactive advertising for a range of multimedia devices. Advertising agencies must experiment creatively, become brokers of consumer insights, and guide allocation of advertising dollars amid exploding choices. All players must adapt to a world where advertising inventory is increasingly bought and sold in open exchanges vs. traditional channels.

In a previous post I wrote about PR measurement and blogging, and how because of their ability to give lots of numbers, social media can be over-valued relative to news editorial coverage. Even though I’m a huge social media supporter, I still believe that for most businesses the value of mainstream media news coverage is currently much greater than that of online “buzz.” Social media have engagement value, too, and businesses should be getting involved. But editorial coverage still has huge value.

I believe technology and social trends are much bigger threats to traditional advertising than they are to public relations. I will get into reasons for that in a future post.

But as the IBM report indicates, these next five years will be tumultuous for everyone who has been involved in the “one to many” mass media industry that has pushed messages at consumers for the last 50 years. IBM sums it up best by saying: “The next 5 years will hold more change for the advertising industry than the previous 50 did.”

The IBM report, and its four scenarios of how drastic these changes will be, is well worth reading and pondering for anyone interested in marketing and advertising. I’m betting that the “Ad Marketplace” scenario will best describe the picture in 2012.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , , , ,