Comments on: Social Networks Should Have Social Ads

By: Facebook V. Myspace | Adventures in Social Media

Facebook V. Myspace | Adventures in Social Media — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:35:00 +0000

[...] I promised in an earlier post about Myspace’s advertising practices – here is my evaluation of the two giants of social networking from both my professional and [...]

By: Katie

Katie — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 06:18:02 +0000

So exciting to see all the discussion going on here! In response to the dialogue between Steve and Simon I’ll throw in my two cents:
- I think digital TV is like mobile, for the last few years it was always going to be “the next big thing” and now, finally, it has started to take off in the ways we’ve all been talking about it for years. I feel like digital TV is similar, we’re all talking about it now in the industry, getting ready for it and getting our minds wrapped around it but it likely won’t be prevalent in the consumer sector for a few years.
- That said, I believe that technology is secondary to strategy. The idea is to move your thought process to the correct place and then you’ll be ready to adopt whatever emerging technology comes out. And to me, the marketing strategy that will be most successful from here on out will be
1. Consumer focused / permission based
2. Measurable – marketers will want methods that provide trackable ROI
3. Targeted – this will help to accomplish the first two parts.
In my opinion the technologies that will accomodate those pieces will be the most successful.

By: Simon T Small

Simon T Small — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:47:19 +0000

Steve, all good points, although I’m not sure many people have 7-10 computers… ha.

Accountability is the key for marketers without it they have no way to describe the benefits they bring to the organisation. The more accountability the better.

In relation to the blog posts original direction, Facebook offers comprehensive accountability, MySpace doesn’t. Blasting adverts at random people is going backwards in the search for accountability.

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 09:21:22 +0000

Simon, I agree that the technology has a long way to go and I still think there are far too many problems to overcome. In a family of n, how does the TV know who is watching. Ads for me or my wife can range from boring to inappropriate for my kids. Time-based ads are known problems since I watch TV on weekend mornings and my kids watch in the evenings. There are events (Super Bowl, Olympics, other sports, movies, news, music) on TV that garner high-cost ads just for that special. Low-cost targeted ads for books on Barnes&Noble replacing Budweiser during a football game? Really? I just don’t think so. All ads are not created equal. While TV and internet are supplied by carriers, they still have no idea who is on the TV and who is on the computer. As a matter of fact, I have anywhere from 7-10 computers on-line at my house at a given time and a variety of users and focuses. It would end up being exactly the same as what I get now. I think advertising will not change for the mass media outlets — radio, newspaper, magazine (online/print), TV, movies, etc. And to be honest, there is something to be said for general ads that open new horizons to people who would otherwise be uninformed and unaware otherwise.

Will things change? Sure, that is a constant in our world as things change all the time. But sometimes “control” is not a good solution, since it may put you deeper in a rut than you already exist in.

Just a thought….

By: Simon T Small

Simon T Small — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:37:54 +0000

Steve, digital TV is already starting to have impacts around targeting, however, technology has a long way to go right now:
1. with the right service you can block ads
2. in the US some cable companies provide internet connections, they can see what you’re interested in on the internet, they then display relevat ads on TV, its called behavioural targeting
3. Marketers will demand highly forms of accountability and targeting as they’re starting to expect it from the internet and TV will lose advertising dollars rapidly if TV doesn’t change (The recession in fact is having global impacts on advertising spends, while traditional (untargeted channels like TV are reducing the spend on targeted platforms like the internet are increasing)

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:04:55 +0000

While I originally disagreed with your position, I have to say that I have changed my mind when it comes to social networking. While advertising pays the bills, it only makes sense to get those ads that you want and will respond to. They are not going away, but forcing everyone to muddle through them on login it outrageous. That alone would be a reason not to use Myspace and I would really like to hear your comparisons from a personal and professional perspective.

While Ben may be successful with his ads, that is not justification for blasting them in the face of social network users without regard for the audience. Films are a social experience? I disagree completely, but so what? That does not mean you can blast any content anywhere you want because you paid for it. It should not be for sale by social networks without regard to their customer base. Perhaps it shows the desperation at Myspace for revenue and their inability to come up with enlightened ways to integrate their revenue model with their customers.

But you seem to have a good answer and analysis. “Your world, your way” is the right way to go. We all understand that ads are here to stay and letting people vote and be targeted is a cooperative and acceptable approach to move forward. Cooperation in a social network — brilliant!

Lastly, I disagree with Simon’s thought that digital TV/cable will make any difference. When cable first came out (yeah, I’m old enough to remember) it was supposed to get rid of ads because TV was no longer free. That didn’t happen. Movies attendance was paid for, so it was advertisement free – that didn’t last. Costs are going up and advertisers pay the freight, so it will not be going away.

By: Katie

Katie — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:06:08 +0000

I don’t disagree that advertising on Myspace can be successful but all movies are not for everyone. If they show (and pay to show) their ad to 100 people and only 62 of those people are even remotely interested in a horror flick then that’s 38 impressions they didnt get any value from. Of course that’s a much smaller scale than the example I’m talking about (and a ridiculously high conversion rate, most display ads are 5% or less but I’m bad at math and this makes it easy for me.) If they could better target their ad to show to 100 people where all 100 people are interested in the ad, or where they only have to pay to show the ad to the 62 people who want to see it – that’s better ROI. The system works to an extent but I’m saying it could work better. By allowing your audience to vote ads up or down it makes their experience better while essentially tricking them into helping you target them better with advertising that will make an impression on them.

By: ben

ben — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:38:48 +0000

movies and films are for everyone and the advertising we do on myspace has huge success. it works and most people are generally okay with it. films are a social experience.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:22:49 +0000

Totally agree, I am tired of the excess ads that are of no interest to me.

My question though, is if Myspace were to keep advertising on the login page, where does one draw the line between general and specific targeted ads? I think that may be difficult, when most might just see a movie ad generalized enough. It would definitely be best for Myspace to wait until after login.

Also, lets hear your reasons on Facebook over Myspace.

By: Simon T Small

Simon T Small — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:16:33 +0000

Andrew, it’ll be here soon, digital TV/cable will give you so much control in the future.

Katie, totally online and wastage (i.e. not getting your infront of the right person) shouldn’t exist.