backtop


Print 28 comment(s) - last by tng.. on Dec 30 at 10:55 AM


  (Source: agbeat.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com)
Facebook announced that it will begin testing a new Facebook Messaging system

If you thought that seeing advertisements in your Facebook news feed was annoying, get ready for Facebook's latest marketing scheme: ads sent to your inbox.

Facebook announced that it will begin testing a new Facebook Messaging system, where users can no longer choose to have just friends or connections message their inbox; instead, people (or marketers) can pay to have messages sent to you. 

Right now, relevant messages from friends can be sent to your inbox while other less relevant messages are sent to the "Other" folder. What non-friends or marketers can do is pay to make sure their message is sent to your inbox instead of the "Other" folder.

"Today we’re starting a small experiment to test the usefulness of economic signals to determine relevance," said Facebook's announcement. "This test will give a small number of people the option to pay to have a message routed to the Inbox rather than the Other folder of a recipient that they are not connected with.

"Several commentators and researchers have noted that imposing a financial cost on the sender may be the most effective way to discourage unwanted messages and facilitate delivery of messages that are relevant and useful."

Facebook said the new service will have restrictions, such as keeping it to personal messages only and allowing only one per week during the testing phase. Facebook said it will allow people to message someone they may have seen speak live or perform, but aren't friends with, or seek others out for job opportunities (sort of like LinkedIn, where you have to upgrade to a paid account to send someone private InMail).

However, it's likely that Facebook is just doing this to allow marketers greater reach to its one billion monthly active users.

Just last month, Google's Vice President of Product Bradley Horowitz bashed Facebook's approach to ads. He criticized the fact that ads are forced into people's news feeds. He even went as far as comparing Facebook ads to a guy with a sandwich board popping in between a father and his daughter during an important conversation. 

"We don't have to make next week's payroll by jamming ads at users," said Horowitz.

Source: The Consumerist



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Reason number n+1
By NicodemusMM on 12/21/2012 2:58:02 AM , Rating: 4
It's a good thing I don't use Facebook. Just one more reason not to start.




RE: Reason number n+1
By Kefner on 12/21/2012 2:55:03 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks, I can sleep better knowing you don't use Facebook...


RE: Reason number n+1
By NicodemusMM on 12/21/2012 3:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
You're welcome. Anything I can do to help.

I realize my post wasn't exactly of great substance (like yours?), but it reflects what a lot of people are thinking and with similar reason. The fad is wearing off for many and things like pushed ads only serve to drive away people more quickly.


RE: Reason number n+1
By tng on 12/22/2012 10:56:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but it reflects what a lot of people are thinking and with similar reason
I have many younger friends that are on Facebook. I have found that they have less knowledge of and contact with people that they are so-called "close" to.

I will actually talk to people via phone and they just read messages. I think that the information density in a 30 minute phone call every couple of months is much more rich than just a FB page or general messages to all "Friends".


RE: Reason number n+1
By xti on 12/22/2012 5:51:57 PM , Rating: 3
How do you know that people don't call for 30 min a month AND use facebook daily? That is a very thin assumption most social media haters make.

I mean if your family post pics of the dinner they had that you cant attend - how is that not a good thing?

open your mind


RE: Reason number n+1
By tng on 12/22/2012 6:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How do you know that people don't call for 30 min a month AND use facebook daily?
Probably because I have talked to them about what some of their friends are doing since the last time they were here and they have know real idea, but they can tell you what they posted today on FB. Most of the time they just tell me that they haven't talked to them.
quote:
That is a very thin assumption most social media haters make.
Wow, talk about assumptions, I hate being social, that is what I understand from your comment. I actually visit and call my friends as much as I can, I am more social than most and FB is not a substitute for up close and personal.

My mind IS open and I like people and actually talk to them, not just what most people on FB describe as brief messages with "Friends".


RE: Reason number n+1
By xti on 12/23/2012 9:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Probably because I have talked to them about what some of their friends are doing since the last time they were here and they have know real idea, but they can tell you what they posted today on FB. Most of the time they just tell me that they haven't talked to them.


so this is one of those "my 2 friends do this, so it must apply across the board". It is very arrogant to think that users are just on FB and never call a family member all month long.

quote:
Wow, talk about assumptions, I hate being social, that is what I understand from your comment. I actually visit and call my friends as much as I can, I am more social than most and FB is not a substitute for up close and personal. My mind IS open and I like people and actually talk to them, not just what most people on FB describe as brief messages with "Friends".


you made an assumption about an assumption apparently. Social media haters always post "i talk to my friends", which implies those that are on facebook, dont talk to anyone in person or cell. It is always the same thing: either one extreme (only post on facebook, never talk in person/phone) or the other (only on phone/person, no social media).

Hence, the closed minded comment. It is not that difficult to see that there is plenty of blending of the 2 concepts.


RE: Reason number n+1
By tng on 12/23/2012 6:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
Again, you have plenty of assumptions. This is not just one or two friends, is almost everybody that I know personally that uses FB (probably 2 dozen). Yes mostly younger than me, but a couple that are older as well. Also a couple of nieces as well, but they will communicate more via phone than and text.

Yes there are more than a few of those friends that would never have nay contact with me if I didn't initiate contact as much as I do. Here is the thing, I make the effort to talk with many of the people that I know, but even with some of the people that I know that don't have a FB account, if I make the effort they will respond, but they typically are not the first to do it. It is as though people are lazy when it comes to social contact...
quote:
It is very arrogant to think that users are just on FB and never call a family member all month long.
But I do know people that are that way... Yes it is a big leap from just them to everybody, but there it is.


RE: Reason number n+1
By xti on 12/28/2012 4:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
again... based on your whopping 20 people you know...you are saying everyone either:

1. uses fb and never picks up a phone
2. uses phone and has no fb account.

with no mixing of the 2. really, really dumb.


RE: Reason number n+1
By tng on 12/30/2012 10:55:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
again... based on your whopping 20 people you know...you are saying everyone either:
Dude, you are an idiot obviously. I know personally people from Sydney to Helsinki to Israel and call them quite often and visit them at least once a year.

20 people? I know people in more countries than that and visit them on a yearly basis.

Sorry I don't measure up to your hundreds of Facebook "friends" who post messages about what they are doing daily for you so you "know" them...


[self-righteous rage]
By Motoman on 12/21/2012 10:57:55 AM , Rating: 1
WAAAAAAAH!!! Everything on the internet should be free and work exactly the way we want it to! WE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE FREE USE OF ANYTHING WE WANT WITHOUT ANY POLICIES BEING CONTRARY TO WHAT WE WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! No one has any right to make any money! Everyone just has to make the apps we all want to use, the way we want to use them, because we said so! WAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

[/dipsh1ts of the world who use social notworking things]




RE: [self-righteous rage]
By Aloonatic on 12/21/2012 11:18:56 AM , Rating: 2
You don't have to be a ******* to use social networking and find those sites useful. However, I agree with the general statement that people don't understand that there's no such thing as a free lunch/app/web service.

Social networks can be very useful for lazy people like myself who have friends and family who've moved all over the world and who don't just spam their status messages with what they had for lunch, so maybe I'm lucky, but facebook is handy. I only check it a few times a week though.

Do you think that anyone would be able to come up with a paid for, add free version of facebook/Google+ though? It's a shame that we are probably way too far down the line for that to happen. I can't even be bothered to change to Google+, which from what I've seen looks to be better than facebook, and the thing is, it's not just me who has to move, all my friends do too. That's where facebook are onto a winner now. They either have users like me who don't use it enough to be bothered with the hassle of moving to a new service, or they have users with 100s of "friends" who can't move to another service unless they all do too, en-masse.


RE: [self-righteous rage]
By Xplorer4x4 on 12/21/2012 3:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Social networks can be very useful for lazy people like myself who have friends and family who've moved all over the world and who don't just spam their status messages with what they had for lunch, so maybe I'm lucky, but facebook is handy. I only check it a few times a week though.

Generally speaking I loathe facebook! However, like you mentioned, it does have a certain convenience to it in terms of staying in touch with those at a distance. Also, a man formed a local group that monitors the radio frequencies of first responders in the ti-state area. It can be a major convenience in terms of knowing where bad accidents are causing traffic delays, it can be a major source of entertainment given some of the ludicrous crap that is called in to 911 but they have to respond to, and it is just generally interesting in cases where you have been blown off the road by 3 cops, and ambulance, and a fire truck, and you are curious to know what happened. Plus they typically have more reliable information then the local media outlets, more to the point then local media outlets, and have the information posted long before the local media does.


RE: [self-righteous rage]
By ClownPuncher on 12/21/2012 3:26:09 PM , Rating: 3
Your post sucks. Even if I agree with the message, I feel like I wan't to poop in your mailbox.


RE: [self-righteous rage]
By dark matter on 12/22/2012 2:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
I bet you get excited whenever you look at your spam folder don't you.

I'd get a refund on the penis pills though. They only cock they've made bigger is you.


and the stock goes..
By Nortel on 12/20/2012 11:44:00 PM , Rating: 1
"We don't have to make next week's payroll by jamming ads at users" - while spamming ads to get ad traffic up




RE: and the stock goes..
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/21/2012 12:35:01 AM , Rating: 2
Facebook has been on a death spiral for a bit over a year now, ever since the IPO they have been accelerating down that track.

I'd be surprised if they were little more than MySpace is now, five years from now.


RE: and the stock goes..
By StevoLincolnite on 12/21/2012 1:12:48 AM , Rating: 2
Be prepared for the Viagra messages. :P


RE: and the stock goes..
By RufusM on 12/21/2012 10:05:29 AM , Rating: 2
Facebook would really have to screw things up to be replaced five years from now. They've hit critical mass at this point and people resist change, in general.

The rule of thumb is that a competitor must be much, much better (not just a little better) to get people to switch. Maybe Facebook will get bad enough and something else will get better enough in five years, but it's going to take a lot.


RE: and the stock goes..
By tng on 12/22/2012 11:09:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Facebook would really have to screw things up to be replaced five years from now.
I think it will take longer than just 5 years, but it is coming.

FB is no longer the warm and fuzzy business that everybody started off with. Now there are shareholders and shareholders expect return on investment. I imagine that along with the billions that MZ got from the IPO, he now has to listen to some people who invested major money and they to tell him how he should do things...

Expect this kind of thing to continue as FB looks for more and more income streams...


what i dont understand is
By ballist1x on 12/21/2012 7:05:47 AM , Rating: 2
How many clicks can they possibly obtain that are not fraudulent in a way or other, i.e with hidden close buttons or strategically positioned to capture a misclick?

Therefore, the number of good clicks must be about zero. So who the hell pays for these kind of clicks?!

Maddness.ill be happy when this market is completely dead.




Failbook
By EricMartello on 12/22/2012 12:43:18 AM , Rating: 2
Despite its massive traffic Facebook has consistently failed to effectively monetize this in a reliable way. The ads it displays are usually tuned out, and most of its new ideas would just alienate its users because it amounts to spamming them.

I do not have a problem with Facebook making money but all these "genius startups" who are little more than a 'not-so-original idea at right place, right time' need to realize that if you cannot offer users a value that they would feel compelled to pay for then you really cannot inundate them with ads and expect them to continue using the service.

Facebook grew because it was free to use...and I'd feel safe in saying that the costs of scaling it up to service the millions of users it has now are not inline with the revenues they generate from their current monetization efforts.

Whoever is working on the "next" facebook right now should take note. If you want to make money in the future then you better not build your user base on the premise that it's entirely free, forever.




ironic
By xti on 12/22/2012 5:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
It's ironic that the first line talked about how annoying ads are then this huge ad on DT scrolled up and blocked the entire screen on my phone.

Heh.




HA HA Suckers!
By Dr of crap on 12/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: HA HA Suckers!
By mackx on 12/21/2012 10:45:25 AM , Rating: 2
never heard of adblock?


RE: HA HA Suckers!
By HostileEffect on 12/21/2012 11:25:56 AM , Rating: 2
Firefox + noscript + adblock plus + ghostery... glorious combination.


RE: HA HA Suckers!
By Uncle on 12/22/2012 7:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
One other one Called "Do Not Track Me". Using that one and Ghostery is about all you need, I think.


RE: HA HA Suckers!
By Kefner on 12/21/2012 2:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, I can sleep better knowing you don't use Facebook... Part 2


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki