Do you think this is a case of A/B Testing, or are the ads here to say?
Picture for reference: https://imgur.com/a/ddddPAm
If I was an advertiser do I really want to pay to have my ad (video nonetheless) shown to someone while they're actively trying to have a phone call? As a user, I'd just be pissed off at the advertiser plus im not looking at my screen when talking.
I guess technically this increases ad "views" metrics. But advertisers are just wasting their money. I hope the fact that Meta is testing changes like this causes advertisers to re-evaluate the risks of using FB advertising.
I recall a presentation someone gave awhile back which said something like, "Give a PM a goal that their job depends on and they will burn the company down to hit it."
I was a PM at a FAANG in a former life, so I can understand the pressure. Thankfully, I never did anything like this, partly because my team had a strong focus on customer experience but also because I cared less about the financial/promotion incentives.
Also its one thing to show an expensive ad on a screen that the user is actively looking at (that might actually be effective), and another to show an expensive ad on a screen that 95% of users are not looking at.
There's a bottom section that slides up and if a user clicks on one of the videos it will play for all participants. If anyone sees this and didn't intentionally click on one of those videos please file a bug!
Looking at the screenshot, let's say it's a cat food ad... if that "Karen" would call the cat food company and complain that their ad wasted her time with an old relative, or whatever, and in turn waste that companies time... and multiply that with 10.000 karens,... but it needs people to actually be proactive about stuff like that.
Setting aside that people load their browsers up with ad blockers to avoid those too, they're also async experiences that have no real-time social dynamics involved with them. Video calls are interpersonal and interruptions are highly problematic.
Also not to mention that calls are very private. And the impression it gives to consumers that their call is being used for ads or even tracking.
Cue someone below me talking about how they set up a Matrix or XMPP server for grandma and its 'so easy' once you get the presence handshake working and if you're using a specific set of clients that support the right features.
The second I get a video ad - that's it for FB video calls for me.
"Hey mum, I decided to call you because that video ad bullshit is bullshit".
In UI: https://cs.joshstrange.com/zTpdlC
End of call, always on top, popup: https://cs.joshstrange.com/BizVwE
EDIT: I get that it's less offensive since it's a "first-party ad"/"upsell" and I could forgive the banner in the app (even though dismissing it only makes it go away for like 24 hours, if that) but the popups post-meeting drive me bonkers. To the point I've considered seeing if I can write some code to watch for that window and kill it right away.
May as well try it. People are swallowing everything else.
Sounds like someone deserves a promotion. Just look at the right numbers for your arguments.
In the past, I've used Jitsi for when Facebook Messenger wasn't working for whatever reason.
I hate using messenger but some people I communicate with still prefer it. If this is rolled out, they will surely move to other platforms.
