Does Facebook have a right to monetise its users conversations? **Vote** and have your say in our forum.
McConnell, P&G's general manager-interactive marketing and innovation, said marketers should not "hijack" their customers and that it is "arrogant" to monetise social networking platforms.
Speaking at a digital media conference over the weekend in Cincinnati, Ohio, McConnell said: "I have a reaction to that as a consumer advocate and an advertiser. What in heaven's name made you think you could monetise the real estate in which somebody is breaking up with their girlfriend?"
McConnell told the conference that he does not think P&G should continue to buy banner ads on Facebook, although he believes there is still value in branded Facebook applications.
However, McConnell warned that advertisers should be wary of encroaching their customer's personal space on social networking websites.
He said: "I think when we call it 'consumer-generated media,' we're being predatory.
"Who said this is media? Media is something you can buy and sell. Media contains inventory. Media contains blank spaces. Consumers weren't trying to generate media. They were trying to talk to somebody."
"So it just seems a bit arrogant. We hijack their own conversations, their own thoughts and feelings, and try to monetise it."
McConnell also lauded Facebook's ability for targeted advertising, but questioned marketers rights to take advantage of the information stored online.
He said: "The targeting is fantastic. You can do really amazing things. But I'm not so sure I want to be targeted like that. I don't think everything every consumer says to someone else and writes down is somehow monetisable by the media industry."
Comments
Well monetize or not at least the user is more aware of the products and is prone to lesser junk than before......
While I would have agreed with Ted McConnell wholeheartedly about a week ago, I recently found myself clicking on one of the links advertising the type of holiday that I adore, making me re-evaluate my opinion. Perhaps advertising products or services which are related to people's leisure pursuits are be less intrusive than advertising for furniture? But then who is to say what somebody else would like to see - perhaps furniture is the thing for them. So to solve the dilemma, Facebook could give users the opportunity to vote whether they would like to see advertising on specific products and services in a specific area of Facebook similar to other personal settings. And perhaps consumers could change their settings for the type of products and services they are interested since this is likely to change over time. This would also mean that advertisers would be talking to a captive audience at all times - increasing advertising effectiveness. A robust piece of market research should easily provide the answer to this question whether consumers think such a solution would work.
"What in heaven's name made you think you could monetise the real estate in which somebody is breaking up with their girlfriend?"
What does Ted's significant other think of this example I wonder?
I think anyone who breaks up with their girlfriend on Facebook has questionable judgment and probably is not astute enough really be aware of the privacy issues the P & G chief is highlighting.
Also I don't feel that a top marketing man at an FMCG company is an impartial ' consumer advocate'
I like Susanne's post- targeting is the key. After all, the email in my spam folder ceases to be spam as soon as I am interested in it.
dano - 18/11/2008
Ted McConnell is a name of someone over 50. And out of touch. And american.
More sophisticated targeting simply means more relevant advertising for the user. I remember before Facebook offered targeted solutions seeing endless ads for "Zwinkys", which i have absolutely no interest in and actually used to annoy me!
Now i get ads relevant to my life, and the option to "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" adverts to make the medium entirely personalised - who wouldn't want that?
I have noticed an outrageous amount of targeted advertising on Facebook recently, and at times I do feel that they know slightly TOO much! There is such a fine line that I can't help but feel todays consumers will either be numb to it or overly sensitive! Which one are you?!
I log onto facebook for personal time, not for being sold to time. Consequently I don't think I could name a single ad on facebook inspite of using the site for a couple of years. The will try to monetise it of course, but I suspect they will have limited success.
I see his point but it appears to me that McConnell seems to think people should be able to chose when they get advertised to,and that's ridiculous. Surely product placement would fall at the same immoral hurdle but in an age of file sharing, someone sometime, has to get paid. I don't like seeing James Bond flashing off his Sony Viao to me but I know that in part it helped fund the film and give me a partially subsidised 2 hours of entertainment.
I also think Mr McConnell is generalising social media. I believe social media advertising is split into 2 parts. Passive advertising – when an ad is shown to a user alongside their social profile, and engaged advertising, when the user is interacting with a brand. For passive advertising - I can break up with my girlfriend by Facebook email or Gmail. One it would seem is immoral while the other is ok because of the platform used. In the case of engaged advertising, I believe as long as the user knows they're interacting with the brand and the brand does not try and manipulate the conversation it's having with the end user, then this is an entirely pure way of talking to a user and therefore a great form of advertising.
Either way, in our case it's great news and I'd love to have a chat with Mr McConnell: "McConnell told the conference that he does not think P&G should continue to buy banner ads on Facebook, although he believes there is still value in branded Facebook applications."
Adknowledge are a social media ad platform. In September we served 10 billion ads into social media applications across Facebook, MySpace, Hi5, Bebo, Friendster and Orkut. Along with monetising apps we also offer brands the opportunity to "rent an app"
Here's an example: http://apps.new.facebook.com/videotheater/Video.php?contentId=4 for more information pbowen@adknowledge.com
The current Facebook ads are hardly intrusive are they? And they're only targeted on what you actually put into your profile. For example, i say i like snowboarding on my profile, so i see a lot of ads for chalets, instructor courses and winter holidays. I don't see a problem with the ads because if i'm on Facebook doing something specific - breaking up with a girlfriend, messaging a mate for beers, uploading the latest embarrassing pic, etc - then i'm quite capable of ignoring the ads. Once i've finished whatever i'm doing and i'm ready to be distracted then i think ads which are targeted to my interests are far more appealing than a lot of the random rubbish that screams for my attention every day. And i'd prefer that they monetise my time online by showing me ads rather than charging me a subscription...
I think accepting advertising is part of their t&c's when you join. However, my view is that personal conversations should be personal, regardless where they happen to take place. Like telephone conversations, who would imagine using advertising there! I myself am far less likely to buy anything that I find is being advertised intrusively, on fb and elsewhere - in fact, Yahoo is really big \(&bad) on this, I can't stand the way their ads often prevent you from using the email account properly.
I think that this depends on the form of advertising. Regular banner adverts etc cannot be that bad for the user, can they??
Yes I agree ad relevance is great and I find them useful like Google's Adsense Ads and some Facebook ads too but the thin line between privacy and public can be crossed easily and thats why Yahoo didnt. Maybe dats why Yahoo is not as profitable as Google or valued more than Facebook althou it has more traffic.
For a FMCG chief to be a consumer advocate, i think its great social responsibility or plain great positioning for hiimself.
For a mass marketeer thou, i find mass media like TV, newspapers or shop displays more relevant than niche facebook ads. Welcome your replies at my facebook, search: Lim Yong Siang
Sorry, I meant Lycos not Yahoo. Not have had bad experiences re Yahoo advertising.
There is a point to this statement, and whilst I haven't purchased Facebook \(or other UGC) for my agency for a couple of years; it was due to effectiveness or lack of it. Consumers live in a world of "free"; and someone has to pay for it.
Agree with this last point. who pays for the upkeep of Facebook? Why do I expect it for free? If FB asked me if I would prefer a monthly sub or a little targeted advertising, personally I'd pick the latter.<br><br>
Screening my personal messages for co-incidence of 'dumped' and 'suicidal' and offering me a last will and testament service, that's probably too far. But if I say I like cinema and they hit me with a trailer for a new film, why not?
Sounds like Ted is getting it a bit incorrect. Advertising on face book is like a hoarding in a football ground and it is not a personal space. Every thing on the web is tracked although we might not know who exactly would be tracking us. Facebook is a media like web for sure. People get onto that media to talk to someone but again, they are talking to someone in a gathering.
In my recent study 'Social network marketing, engagement marketing and brands' I carried out quantitative and qualitative research into the opinions of Facebook users who have come into direct contact with social ads that Mr McConnell refers to. What I found was that users themselves do not find the social ads intrusive - many stated that it was a necessary evil for the site's existence; in fact they are a savvy bunch and they understand ads support the cost of the platform. What they do object to is their purchase info being made public to their friends \(Beacon fiasco) and brand's paying their friends to promote products to them via the platform.
From a marketing perspective, my study found that those brands who launched an application would see more success in terms of friends/fans and exposure by purchasing social ads used to support the awareness of the campaign - think integrated campaigns marketing 101.
Taking P&G as an example - if they are promoting their latest Gillette razor blade to Facebook users via an application such as a Tiger Woods, Thierry Henry viral game etc... brand advocates can only help to seed this content so far amongst their friends and amongst other group networks within Facebook. The objective for P&G is to create brand awareness of the product and to reach as wide an audience as possible, so they should look to purchase social ads that link to the Facebook app page that way they are keeping them within the Facebook environment, increasing brand reach and engaging with fans.
With regard to taking advantage of the conversations online - for marketers this is where the value is and where engagement between brand and consumer is most important. Yes people can enjoy a branded application and thank P&G for spending their budget on making me have a laugh, but the real key to getting value out of social networks is the conversation itself. Social media after all is conversation powered by online tools - and these conversations are of extreme value to brands.
If I split up with my girlfriend and make it known public, am I doing this to inform my closest friends who I would contact one to one personally or am I looking for sympathy from my whole network of friends many of whom I haven't seen or spoken to in-depth since leaving school and probably wouldn't be that interested so we need to understand the need for people to make their personal lives so public but this a whole different issue altogether.
P&G spend a colossal amount on R&D for developing these products so they need to tap into these conversations for market research and if that means purchasing social ads in support of their brand campaign/page/app on Facebook which gives them access to a larger fan/customer base then the tools are there and should be used.
Most of the users I surveyed stated that they recalled lifestyle brand social ads as they are mass consumer. The only negative ad at the time of my study was the pinkpatch.
whilst I find adverts on facebook annoying \(although sometimes rather funny) I think its important to note that facebook offers a free service, if i was paying a subscription then would want more say in the adverts etc.
If i want a truely private conversation I will conduct it over personal email, phone or face to face. They offer a great service for essentially nothing....can we take the moral high ground over something we get for free?
Comments
Gaurav Arora - 18/11/2008
Well monetize or not at least the user is more aware of the products and is prone to lesser junk than before......
Susanne Goller - 18/11/2008
While I would have agreed with Ted McConnell wholeheartedly about a week ago, I recently found myself clicking on one of the links advertising the type of holiday that I adore, making me re-evaluate my opinion. Perhaps advertising products or services which are related to people's leisure pursuits are be less intrusive than advertising for furniture? But then who is to say what somebody else would like to see - perhaps furniture is the thing for them. So to solve the dilemma, Facebook could give users the opportunity to vote whether they would like to see advertising on specific products and services in a specific area of Facebook similar to other personal settings. And perhaps consumers could change their settings for the type of products and services they are interested since this is likely to change over time. This would also mean that advertisers would be talking to a captive audience at all times - increasing advertising effectiveness. A robust piece of market research should easily provide the answer to this question whether consumers think such a solution would work.
David Pearce - 18/11/2008
"What in heaven's name made you think you could monetise the real estate in which somebody is breaking up with their girlfriend?" What does Ted's significant other think of this example I wonder? I think anyone who breaks up with their girlfriend on Facebook has questionable judgment and probably is not astute enough really be aware of the privacy issues the P & G chief is highlighting. Also I don't feel that a top marketing man at an FMCG company is an impartial ' consumer advocate' I like Susanne's post- targeting is the key. After all, the email in my spam folder ceases to be spam as soon as I am interested in it.
dano - 18/11/2008
Ted McConnell is a name of someone over 50. And out of touch. And american.
Chris Pollard - 18/11/2008
More sophisticated targeting simply means more relevant advertising for the user. I remember before Facebook offered targeted solutions seeing endless ads for "Zwinkys", which i have absolutely no interest in and actually used to annoy me! Now i get ads relevant to my life, and the option to "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" adverts to make the medium entirely personalised - who wouldn't want that?
Carl Martin - 18/11/2008
I have noticed an outrageous amount of targeted advertising on Facebook recently, and at times I do feel that they know slightly TOO much! There is such a fine line that I can't help but feel todays consumers will either be numb to it or overly sensitive! Which one are you?!
Will Milling - 18/11/2008
I log onto facebook for personal time, not for being sold to time. Consequently I don't think I could name a single ad on facebook inspite of using the site for a couple of years. The will try to monetise it of course, but I suspect they will have limited success.
Paul Bowen - 18/11/2008
I see his point but it appears to me that McConnell seems to think people should be able to chose when they get advertised to,and that's ridiculous. Surely product placement would fall at the same immoral hurdle but in an age of file sharing, someone sometime, has to get paid. I don't like seeing James Bond flashing off his Sony Viao to me but I know that in part it helped fund the film and give me a partially subsidised 2 hours of entertainment. I also think Mr McConnell is generalising social media. I believe social media advertising is split into 2 parts. Passive advertising – when an ad is shown to a user alongside their social profile, and engaged advertising, when the user is interacting with a brand. For passive advertising - I can break up with my girlfriend by Facebook email or Gmail. One it would seem is immoral while the other is ok because of the platform used. In the case of engaged advertising, I believe as long as the user knows they're interacting with the brand and the brand does not try and manipulate the conversation it's having with the end user, then this is an entirely pure way of talking to a user and therefore a great form of advertising. Either way, in our case it's great news and I'd love to have a chat with Mr McConnell: "McConnell told the conference that he does not think P&G should continue to buy banner ads on Facebook, although he believes there is still value in branded Facebook applications." Adknowledge are a social media ad platform. In September we served 10 billion ads into social media applications across Facebook, MySpace, Hi5, Bebo, Friendster and Orkut. Along with monetising apps we also offer brands the opportunity to "rent an app" Here's an example: http://apps.new.facebook.com/videotheater/Video.php?contentId=4 for more information pbowen@adknowledge.com
Stuart Aplin - 18/11/2008
The current Facebook ads are hardly intrusive are they? And they're only targeted on what you actually put into your profile. For example, i say i like snowboarding on my profile, so i see a lot of ads for chalets, instructor courses and winter holidays. I don't see a problem with the ads because if i'm on Facebook doing something specific - breaking up with a girlfriend, messaging a mate for beers, uploading the latest embarrassing pic, etc - then i'm quite capable of ignoring the ads. Once i've finished whatever i'm doing and i'm ready to be distracted then i think ads which are targeted to my interests are far more appealing than a lot of the random rubbish that screams for my attention every day. And i'd prefer that they monetise my time online by showing me ads rather than charging me a subscription...
Kati Herranen - 18/11/2008
I think accepting advertising is part of their t&c's when you join. However, my view is that personal conversations should be personal, regardless where they happen to take place. Like telephone conversations, who would imagine using advertising there! I myself am far less likely to buy anything that I find is being advertised intrusively, on fb and elsewhere - in fact, Yahoo is really big \(&bad) on this, I can't stand the way their ads often prevent you from using the email account properly.
Eliska Dobson - 18/11/2008
I think that this depends on the form of advertising. Regular banner adverts etc cannot be that bad for the user, can they??
Stephen Lim - 19/11/2008
Yes I agree ad relevance is great and I find them useful like Google's Adsense Ads and some Facebook ads too but the thin line between privacy and public can be crossed easily and thats why Yahoo didnt. Maybe dats why Yahoo is not as profitable as Google or valued more than Facebook althou it has more traffic. For a FMCG chief to be a consumer advocate, i think its great social responsibility or plain great positioning for hiimself. For a mass marketeer thou, i find mass media like TV, newspapers or shop displays more relevant than niche facebook ads. Welcome your replies at my facebook, search: Lim Yong Siang
Kati Herranen - 19/11/2008
Sorry, I meant Lycos not Yahoo. Not have had bad experiences re Yahoo advertising.
joe woollen - 19/11/2008
There is a point to this statement, and whilst I haven't purchased Facebook \(or other UGC) for my agency for a couple of years; it was due to effectiveness or lack of it. Consumers live in a world of "free"; and someone has to pay for it.
Nuts n Seeds - 19/11/2008
Agree with this last point. who pays for the upkeep of Facebook? Why do I expect it for free? If FB asked me if I would prefer a monthly sub or a little targeted advertising, personally I'd pick the latter.<br><br> Screening my personal messages for co-incidence of 'dumped' and 'suicidal' and offering me a last will and testament service, that's probably too far. But if I say I like cinema and they hit me with a trailer for a new film, why not?
FOUAD NAEEM - 20/11/2008
Sounds like Ted is getting it a bit incorrect. Advertising on face book is like a hoarding in a football ground and it is not a personal space. Every thing on the web is tracked although we might not know who exactly would be tracking us. Facebook is a media like web for sure. People get onto that media to talk to someone but again, they are talking to someone in a gathering.
Tom Chapman - 22/11/2008
In my recent study 'Social network marketing, engagement marketing and brands' I carried out quantitative and qualitative research into the opinions of Facebook users who have come into direct contact with social ads that Mr McConnell refers to. What I found was that users themselves do not find the social ads intrusive - many stated that it was a necessary evil for the site's existence; in fact they are a savvy bunch and they understand ads support the cost of the platform. What they do object to is their purchase info being made public to their friends \(Beacon fiasco) and brand's paying their friends to promote products to them via the platform. From a marketing perspective, my study found that those brands who launched an application would see more success in terms of friends/fans and exposure by purchasing social ads used to support the awareness of the campaign - think integrated campaigns marketing 101. Taking P&G as an example - if they are promoting their latest Gillette razor blade to Facebook users via an application such as a Tiger Woods, Thierry Henry viral game etc... brand advocates can only help to seed this content so far amongst their friends and amongst other group networks within Facebook. The objective for P&G is to create brand awareness of the product and to reach as wide an audience as possible, so they should look to purchase social ads that link to the Facebook app page that way they are keeping them within the Facebook environment, increasing brand reach and engaging with fans. With regard to taking advantage of the conversations online - for marketers this is where the value is and where engagement between brand and consumer is most important. Yes people can enjoy a branded application and thank P&G for spending their budget on making me have a laugh, but the real key to getting value out of social networks is the conversation itself. Social media after all is conversation powered by online tools - and these conversations are of extreme value to brands. If I split up with my girlfriend and make it known public, am I doing this to inform my closest friends who I would contact one to one personally or am I looking for sympathy from my whole network of friends many of whom I haven't seen or spoken to in-depth since leaving school and probably wouldn't be that interested so we need to understand the need for people to make their personal lives so public but this a whole different issue altogether. P&G spend a colossal amount on R&D for developing these products so they need to tap into these conversations for market research and if that means purchasing social ads in support of their brand campaign/page/app on Facebook which gives them access to a larger fan/customer base then the tools are there and should be used. Most of the users I surveyed stated that they recalled lifestyle brand social ads as they are mass consumer. The only negative ad at the time of my study was the pinkpatch.
Lauren McGillicuddy - 11/12/2008
whilst I find adverts on facebook annoying \(although sometimes rather funny) I think its important to note that facebook offers a free service, if i was paying a subscription then would want more say in the adverts etc. If i want a truely private conversation I will conduct it over personal email, phone or face to face. They offer a great service for essentially nothing....can we take the moral high ground over something we get for free?