Comments on: Serious Doubts About Facebook

By: M-H

M-H — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 00:25:39 +0000

I absolutely agree – but it’s partly the way that the advertising is appearing in the news links that I object to. They really are in your face, and very intrusive. In the latest big Web2.0 success story, Ravelry (for knitters and crocheters), the ads that are starting to appear are placed in a sidebar. I’m sure they are targeted for the content of a page (eg hand-dyed sock yarn in the sidebar of discussions about sock knitting) but you can just not really see it. And, of course, you can assume that people visiting there are interested in purchasing stuff related to their hobby. That’s not the case with facebook.

By: Ericka

Ericka — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:46:53 +0000

Great post, which I accessed via a link from Facebook of course. I’ve been thinking about these kinds of issues as well. Facebook seems to be making the potential of targeted ads more real than other sites which have potential but haven’t really broken through to implementation (I’m thinking of gmail, whose adds are very ignorable, and when perused, quite laughable in some instances). I think the threshold for switching services is probably pretty high, but just like a lot of folks switched from MySpace to Facebook it could happen.I don’t think I’ll get bombarded with a dozen “so and so is a fan of Gucci” messages, but if that did happen I would start looking around at other options, or just buy some Gucci products and fit in with my friends :)

By: Marj

Marj — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:34:59 +0000

I’ve liked the significant difference between Facebook and MySpace. MySpace lets me sign up as a fan and connect with strangers, Facebook allows me to stay in touch with friends.

Much that happens on Fb is grounded in the real. Facilitating connections with brands or bands must change the nature of the space.

I must admit to being taken aback by being confronted by advertising for next week’s Australian election – I thought it was one place I’d be safe from electioneering.

By: Kirsten

Kirsten — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:17:42 +0000

Interesting food for thought. My first awareness of the brand site was noticing one of my friends being listed as a fan of the CBC – which, in Canada, is a positive thing. So I hadn’t given a lot of thought to the ramifications until now.

I’ve signed up ARCTIC to be its own entity, of course, but I’m wishing I’d known this was coming months ago when I created the Facebook group for ARCTIC. Now I don’t know whether to keep focusing on the existing group or try to convince all our fans to move over to become fans of the “brand”, thus creating confusion and weariness smong the people who we need as our fans.

A few days ago I was talking with my real-world friends about how we all know, in a way, what Facebook wants to do to us and what they want to use us for, and yet we ignore it all because it’s such a compelling system. I suspect people will put up with a lot more abuse before they start to abandon it. Just look at Myspace – it’s hard to find any actual content between all the advertising, but for some bizarre reason we still use it. We just complain about it more.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:06:17 +0000

“We need ways to build business models that aren’t just about using people to sell stuff and selling stuff to people. Human connection is worth more than that.”

Hear hear, Nancy. Couldn’t agree more.

Mathew

By: S.A.M.

S.A.M. — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:27:03 +0000

Interesting article. How would you propose social networks make money? I hate ads too, but the network needs to make money in order to provide the service. Would you advocate a subscription model for people who don’t want to see ads? Would anyone pay not to see ads?