Will Facebook ever stop bullshitting?
After pulling 300,000 15 to 24-year-old Swedes out of thin air, Facebook was already skating on thin ice. But thanks to a new report which claimed the social media giant reaches 10 million imaginary Americans, adland commentator Bob Hoffman was forced to ask: Will Facebook ever stop bullshitting?
You’d think by now Facebook would have learned.
For years anyone with a brain has known that Facebook “metrics” are a joke. They make shit up, imbeciles at agencies believe it, dimwit clients fund it, and – bingo – more ad money. Most famously, not long ago they inflated video viewing time on their site by as much as 80%.
Hoffman: “Facebook’s ability to reach non-existent people sets a new standard for the online ad industry”
Recently in my newsletter, I recounted this story…
I’ve been seriously considering referring Facebook’s Ad Manager to the ACCC for deceptive and misleading conduct :
– You cannot claim to deliver ads to an audience that does not exist.
– It is not accurate to refer to the audience size as an ‘estimate’ since the estimate is significantly outside official data
– If the algorithm used to identify an audience is wrong, what affect does this have on bid estimates – are we paying for audience inflation?
At the very least Facebook should it be forced to display a margin of error (albeit a large one) when reporting estimated audience sizes and at detail how the estimate was established.
Thoughts from mUmbrella readers?
Do it, do it.
Do it.
Facebook’s metrics are almost as robust as the TV panel data…
Any with half a brain would measure the success of the platform through 3rd party, verifiable results. Like say, online sales. We see lots of those from budgets that wouldn’t even make a ripple if spent on TV.
And here lies the point. Regardless of what Faceboom implies, smart marketeers have 3rd party reporting setup and they will be able to calculate the ROI. TV ROI? I know let’s build a microsite and only advertise it on TV – hahahahaha – (to be fair, how many thieving ad agencies have tried and are still trying that trick..?)
There are some good points to Bob’s vitriol though. I was setting up a localised campaign on Facebook and the suggested audience was the whole of NSW. I am savvy and changed the location to a specific region of NSW. Many not so savvy people would think that as FB says the audience is just right, they go with it and waste heaps of money – sounds like scattergun TV to me!
Don’t de-rail this train with facts, logic and viable solutions please. And don’t bring TV into this, it doesn’t scare me and make me learn anything – not to mention I can see my ads whether I’m the demographic or not.
How many campaigns in the past 12 months has Bob Hoffman and the above commenters have actually run on Facebook using Power Editor or Ads Manager? What were the objectives and the so called non results? I’m genuinely interested otherwise all I sense above is opinions without personal hands on experience.
100%. Bob Hoffman sounds like an angry old idiot who doesn’t actually have any experience with the platform.
… who knows a hell of a lot more about measuring audiences than you do.
Facebook has a problem with people having multiple accounts and people lying about their age. No surprises there. I myself have 2-3 accounts.
Can we get back to real news?
@Henry I think the point here is that every other publishers numbers are held to account and those who rely on or have data sharing providers, also have multiple account issues – they are ALL held to account by the likes of Nielsen and other 3rd parties that de-duplicate. You must work at FB to think this not real news.
No doubt they bullshit numbers but at the end of the day it works so businesses will continue to spend there
The short answer is No, they wont…as long as they mark their own homework they can claim whatever they like. They also claim to reach 95% of the population of Australia and you’re an idiot if you spend any of your marketing dollars anywhere else…just ask them.
How about you do the same analysis of TV with 18 – 24 . . . oh hold, on you can’t.
What gets me are all the marketing gurus who reckon you can super-target audiences by geography, age, gender, viewing preferences etc etc etc – by relying on Facebook’s algorithm that counts people who don’t exist!
I hate Facebook for several reasons…
I hate it because I have to pay Facebook to build an audience – but then I have to pay them again to reach the audience I already paid to build.
I hate that they serve me ‘targeted’ ads for things I searched for and/or bought yesterday or places I visited last year (and I reckon the people who are paying for those ads would hate them too if only they knew their ad spend was wasted on someone who has already spent their disposable).
I hate Facebooks video posts because they take twice as long to load as YouTube.
I absolutely hate Facebook videos that cut away to video interrupting advertisements with zero options to stop or skip the ad (except to close the page.
I hate that people and organisations fawn over Facebook metrics that don’t matter at best and are false at worst.
I hate that the organisation I used to work for (and many many others) chase Facebook (and other trendy platforms) ‘fame’ at the expense of ‘the basics’ of good PR.
Most of all I hate Facebook because it has proven to be the most successful platform I use!
It is hard to take Bob seriously when he is paid by ThinkTV and appears in paid advertising for them – http://www.bandt.com.au/advert.....-rethinktv
Correct me if im wrong Bob, or are you being paid to be front and center in paid advertising for what is essentially a lobby group?
Can Mumbrella and AdNews (especially) please agree to keep ThinkTV mouthpieces and ‘research’ out of their publications? Biased lobby groups aren’t ‘news’, they’re trying to inject misinformation and manipulate opinions to bring money back to the old world. It’s nefarious and it’s wrong.
Yes, I get paid to speak. No, I did not appear in a paid advert for ThinkTV.
You are free to disagree with me but you cannot disagree with the facts. If you will state what facts I presented you disagree with we can have an adult conversation.
Ok Bob, we shall have an adult conversation You state “No, I did not appear in a paid advert for ThinkTV.”
Unfortunately you are either lying or ignorant, as if you bothered to click on the link I supplied, you would have seen that you were indeed featured in paid advertising for ThinkTV.
So which is it?
I must say I enjoyed this rant, let’s face it we all feel the same about Facebook in ad land.
Unfortunately many clients are blindsided by the bright lights of Facebook, meaning their constant measurement issues get swept under the rug ‘Here, have a free pen and notebook’
This whole mentality of ‘we’re taking on TV networks and challenging media agencies’ has to stop. It’s only a matter of time before they come undone.
Some interesting points here Bob, I suggest checking out Facebook audience insights for more accurate reach estimates based off monthly active users. Facebook Ad Manager inflates reach potential as it displays max reach which as some have pointed out can be inflated by fake accounts and isn’t accurate.
Given that Facebook is the nearest platform for delivering a universal id I don’t see inflated numbers causing an exodus of advertisers, it’s too efficient and too big even if you strip out the disparities as we’re talking about a platform that can reach more than any other at a cost efficiency nobody comes close to. It isn’t like other measurements don’t do the same massaging of audience numbers anyway.
On the issue of metrics while it’s tempting to call bs due to trickiness (such as defining a video view as a 3 second exposure) the onus is on digital analysts to bring sense to numbers. Again, many networks exaggerate if you take their results on face value.
The big issue from my POV is the prominence of fake users across developing markets where there’s a lesser focus on verification (Bangladesh, Philippines, India, etc).
Could Facebook’s claims be a little more refined? Yes Could Facebook perhaps have less ‘salesy’ language when using their tools, (thinking ‘this is the best audience to reach (whole of NSW when I just want to target metro)), yes.
Any marketeer worth their weight in salt. Any business person who is switched on and savvy knows to ignore what Facebook says, utilise their model, refine it, be agile with the approach and ‘BY JINGO’, those sales start flooding in. They do. And often for a fraction of the price it would have cost on TV. This is quite simply a fact.
TV can work, depends on the outcome you want. I take rate cards and reach, readership, audience numbers with a grain of salt. Setting up campaigns with clear goals and with outcomes in mind and then it’s test, test, test, refine, tweak, change and test again. ABT!!!!
To have any product or strategy only in one camp is senseless. Marketing is about a mix. Bob seems senseless. Why listen to this person?