BW's Spencer Ante and Catherine Holahan are the most recent media experts to observe what we pointed out back in December, and that advertising performance (clicks, purchases etc) is a fraction of what advertisers hoped, and that ad revenue projections for social networking sites are proving grossly over optimistic.
It doesn't take a social scientist to know that the value of a social networking site is predicated exclusively on the loyalty of its members--and obviously its that loyalty which inspires the aggregate traffic counts for the platform.
Facebook has quite the track record for introducing innovative ideas, but at the same time, they've imposed these innovations without asking the most important people if they would support it--and they've never invited them to participate in the enterprise value that these members created for its founder. And on more than one occasion, the members rioted , causing Facebook to lose face and retreat. God forbid they should actually conduct member surveys before introducing major releases.
In the case of advertising, this weeks BW article shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone i.e. the that social networking sites are proving to be grossly overrated insofar as a vehicle for advertisers, or as the next gold mine for those looking to make billions in advertising revenue.
We already know that the return on investment i.e. CPM based banners has been diminishing more rapidly than the value of subprime mortgage debt. That's why pay for performance (i.e. PPC and CPC applications are the bread and butter to Google's bottom line. But with that said, the actual # of clicks vs. impressions will always remain insignificant. But Google's Adsense program is exactly the type of application that should be introduced to social networking sites.
Why an advertiser would think that advertising on a social network site would be a panacea merely demonstrates how little most advertisers know about peer-to-peer marketing---and the BW article points that out.
Members on a social network go the site to communicate with other members, not to be inundanted with 3rd banner ads.. They don't click those ads when they're actually surfing the net, so they aren't about to click them within what is supposed to be a 'protected comfort zone'.
Yes, marketers know that products are best promoted via influencers--and a social networking site is by definition, a hotbed of influencers. But unless the member is doing the influencing, any third party advertising strategy is not only going to fail--its going to backfire--and negatively impact the loyalty of its members. Simple logic that any VC should understand before plucking down the next five cents of investor capital.
Facebook claims that allowing its members to advertise products of their own choosing on their own profiles wil make the page 'too cluttered'. Instead, Facebook is imposing what ads display where, including scrolling across member profile pages. That's the equivalent of inserting billboards on the side of my house, without asking my permission, and the fact that I'm not even being offered a piece of the ad revenue is almost incomprehensible.
My 22 year old is a senior in college--and I've polled her, along with two dozen of her peeps. They're all ready to graduate, and to leave Facebook behind them, for the simple reasons noted herein. With that said, if there is going to be ads on the platform, it only makes sense that individual members could select "My Favorite Stuff" and be allowed to maintain their own proprietary 'billboards'--and share in the revenue accordingly.
Out of the mouths of babes.
No comments:
Post a Comment