News of Facebook's "sponsored stories" came out a little while back, but since I haven't noticed any on my quick scans through FB (might have caught a case of banner-blindness recently), I had pretty much forgotten about it until today. Adage just did a story on Facebook's 'social advertising' features to advertisers and gave a good overview of the different offerings.
Many of the reader responses to this article were predictably unhappy that Facebook would 'sell' users' activity information and even users' likenesses to advertisers, especially without the ability to op-out. Some pointed out that if this ad style became popular, it would invariably cause Facebookers to think twice before hitting the 'Like' button. Keep in mind these were Adage readers who you'd think would be pouncing on these new tools.
But by focusing on the privacy concerns, we might be missing the bigger problem underlying the direction FB is taking to create this so-called 'social advertising'. Traditional WOM is driven by 'customer delight'... where the product or service has significantly exceeded the threshold for 'satisfaction'. The awkward step-sibling of WOM is network marketing where the WOM is incentivized by providing cash payouts to the person spreading the word. In both cases, the message stems from benefits received by the messenger. With FB's 'social advertising' offering, they are silently collecting the rent that should be paid to the messenger to convey the WOM. While it might seem like an elegant way to generate new revenues without disrupting a Facebooker's routine, I think this approach is both flawed and short-sighted.
The value of WOM is in getting the messenger's endorsement. A subtle change to the flow could make this 'social advertising' product truer to traditional WOM, less creepy, and ultimately more effective. Instead of treating user's 'Likes' and other activites as implicit approval, FB should pop up an explicit request to endorse or promote the product or brand. These pop-ups only happen if sponsored by an advertiser. Would we, as users, be willing to endorse the specific product or brand? Well, if they gave me 'customer delight', they would've earned it and I'd be happy to oblige. If I was just merely satisfied with the experience, I might need to be incentivized. In that case, advertisers should take a page from Groupon's friend referral program and offer some benefits to both me and the friends who will see my endorsement.
What's the impact to FB if they made this change? Less creeped out Facebookers for one thing. Also, the cost of the incentives offered by the advertisers to the users should be more than offset by the value of the actual endorsement. If these endorsements work and really brings to life the full effect of 'social advertising', then the biggest winner of all will be Facebook.
Win. Win. And Win.
What do you guys think? Know who I might forward this idea to at Facebook? It might save us from having our pictures next to products or services that we'd really rather not. :)
People have to crawl before they run. Facebook is endeavoring into unknown territory so I don't mind them making mistakes. Now, if they don't address these concerns, within about 2 weeks, then that's stupid.
ReplyDeleteBut then again, no one's going to "revolt" and delete their facebook profiles either. Or atleast until there's somewhere else fun to play.
I suppose the real fun is when they start using your profile pics to create animated avatars that sell acne cream to people's friends... "this is me before Proactiv, but now look at me!"