I do so for many different reasons. I love the design, I love fast cars, it signals luxury, it's a classic, I identify myself with the brand and so on. But I will not buy one because I cannot afford it.
I suspect I am not the only one, I know it's certainly not the only thing I have liked and so the graph is filled with a lot of "likes" but much fewer potential buyers. In other words advertisers have very little knowledge about whether I am in the market for their product or not.
Open Graph is a retrospective tool not a predictive tool. When you check in at a concerts or a restaurant you are already there, the ticket has been purchased, the dinner has been eaten, the means of transportation has been taken. Social Graph know a lot about who you are and who you were, where you are, where you have been, but it knows very little about who you are going to be and where you are headed. In other words Open Graph might know more and more about your history but it knows very little about your future either immediate or long term....
Take in contrast Google. When I search for a product, a service, a restaurant etc. on Google, the chances that I am an interested customer is high. Where a "like" takes very little effort to do, in contrast searching, takes a lot more effort. We do not do it unless it's somehow important and top of mind.
Without intent the open graph is blind. Without intent it's almost impossible to distinguish between noise and signal. To repeat. I might like a lot of things but am I going buy any of them?
Without a proper search it's hard to detect this intent and to know when a customer is most receptive to sales. This is the primary secret of Googles success. They know exactly when and what you want to buy. They created an ad-network where they make money even when you don't. Where Facebook is merely decentralizing it's ability to collect information about the users, through likes, shares and other means, Google is decentralizing it's revenue model!
Therefore the question really is the following:
1) Is Facebook going to turn into a search engine querying outside it's own closed garden? 2) Do Facebook have other tricks up it's sleave we just don't know about. 3) Has Facebook invented some way of extrapolating intent out of the knowledge about our past?
To answer the first question first. I don't believe they will at least not in any forseeable future. It would simply be too big of a paradigm shift for them. On the other hand the search they have could certainly be improved.
For question number 2) The answer is probably yes. I see them already experimenting with displaying ads at the top of my notificiations.They are on their way with a host of new social buttons. They will allow for you to pay for others to see your posts and so on.
But if those are their only tricks for selling to me, then it's also very telling for my question number 3) which would be no. Facebook haven't invented a way to extrapolate intent out of my open graph. Cause if they had they wouldn't have to use bruteforce like they do today. And this is the Achilles heel of Facebook. Without a proper way to locate intent Open Graphs is never going to be a truly successful strategy.
I don't think we are missing the bigger point. I think FB will have to find a way to understand my intent and I am not sure they are in a position to do that.
Let's say there is a particular friend who you always like their posts or comment on their status updates. This friend posts once per day, and you comment on that post every time.
Facebook will show you that friends post each time. That friend is obviously important to you.
Let's say another friend posts 20 times per day, and you never like or comment on their posts. Facebook will hardly ever show you those posts, except when they think a friend that you follow closely has liked or commented.
To take it to another level, let's say you use the Facebook Check-In function to check into coffee shops and you Like Starbucks. Do you think Starbucks posts will appear more often in your feed? You betcha. You've shown interest in coffee.
And if you make a status update using the word coffee?
You get my point. Facebook knows more about you than Google does. They are doing a pretty good job of making the comment about search intent (which Google owns) moot.
Let's say you continue liking posts on your favorite news site, they can learn a lot about your interests. However if you arbitrarily like a page due to an ad, it may not be as much of a signal. Facebook can test your interest again by subtly displaying a post related to that like you made and see if you respond to it. Enough non-responses cancels out the value of that initial like.
The point is: to think that Facebook is only using a "like" on the surface to optimize the feed is significantly underestimating the company.
With google I do a search and get result. In other words there is a feedback mechanism that provides me with opportunities right there and I want the result (thats why I am searching)
FaceBook does not have this mechanism. Instead they have to find gaps where they can communicate to me. However, I might not be interested in any answers/suggestions at that time.
That I "like" StarBuck does not mean I like mcDonalds btw and it does not by any metrics mean that I want any of them at the time I read the ad.
So I don't believe they can predict and I know they can't serve the "suggestion" when I need it.
Google does not even need to know what I am intersted in. I can one day decide to get something completely out of left field and it can serve me answers based on that.
Facebook is still just interest based advertising it's not intent based.
How will the fact that I like Starbucks tell Facebook when I'm in the market for a new vacuum cleaner? I might search for vacuum cleaners on Google, but Facebook is going to have no idea that I'm even in the market for vacuum cleaners unless I go and "like" a bunch of vacuum cleaner pages (which I presumably found by searching on Google).
Turn it into a future timeline.
"A large percentage of them are related to ecommerce transactions."
I would only care about Jane using TripAdvisor if I myself was planning a trip just then, Google works because there already exists an intent to purchase that they funnel to the highest bidder. Open Graph as presented by the OP will just be mostly noisy events from people that I happen to know.
Agreed. Seems the basis is sub-par. It shouldn't be friends, it should be people with similar interests. In college people may largely have similar interests. As adults the interests of friends diverge. This is why I like HN but not FB.
FB is an amalgamation of everyone the user has met. Twitter is a collection of people who interest the user.
Again, Jane is going on a trip, here's the picture album, all of that I might want to know about. The fact that she specifically used TripAdviser would only (possibly) matter to me by a coincidence of fate if I am also about to plan a trip of my own.
To put it into cruder terms: if my friend is bragging about a massive dump he took that might be content that I find amusing but the brand of toilet paper he used doesn't enter into it.
Or, another way: If Jane was going to post a status update about her forthcoming trip and had such a great experience using TripAdviser that she would mention it of her own accord that is one thing.
If TripAdviser just managed to get permission to post to her timeline, that's quite another. They are not equivalent by any stretch of the imagination. And while the former is much more likely to get a reaction from her friends, neither are relevant beyond idle chatter to anybody who is not currently in the market for what TripAdviser offers.
Facebook users do not want their news feed to be filtered. That's why the UI keeps automatically flipping "Sort: Most Recent" back to "Sort: Most Relevant", and why so many users keep asking how to STOP it.
So, FB users want to see the content, and the content providers want them to have it. The only problem is an artificial scarcity created by FB. That will eventually drive users away, to other venues where they can get what they want.
By contrast, Google's advertising only adds to users' experience. Users generally accept it, either because it's a mostly harmless distraction, or because it's actually delivering extra content that they would not otherwise have seen.
It's analogous to saying Google users don't want their search results to be sorted by relevance.
Most Google users NEED Google to sort their search, and Facebook is doing the same thing.
And hey, search on Twitter lately? Twitter only shows you SOME of the relevant results in the default view (top results). You have to click "see all" to see them all. Everyone's doing it because it HAS to be done to show you things you are interested in vs spam.
And don't you hate how only the best stories appear in the default view of Hacker News? Of course not. You can go to the "new" tab if you want, but most people don't.
By keeping the filtering process opaque, FB have concealed the value of what they do, so users don't appreciate it. Now, they are fiddling with the unwanted, secret algorithm in a way that benefits them and hurts users - not a good long term strategy.
Removing it entirely is the holy grail. Instead of injecting ads into the news feed, Facebook could selectively promote organic stories that are commercially desirable.
For example, instead of Coca-Cola telling you about how amazing Coke is, you would simply have the frequency of stories favourably referencing, or photos subtly portraying, good times with a bottle of Coke.
Difficult, but much more powerful and revolutionarily more valuable than old-world advertising.
Or change the can of Coke into a can of Pepsi.
Dalton is right that advertisements that are indistinguishable from content are the best kind of advertisements, but only if they are displayed in a context in which the ad-viewer (read: user) wants to see that.
Google has this explicitly tied to a query (and implicitly with previous queries and increasingly with mobile device information, for Google Now). If a user sees an ad on Google it is almost certainly comparable or better than organic results with respect to RELEVANCE TO THE USER, which is what matters. Users express their intent, and Google only shows ads alongside the content that are directly related and aiming to solve the same problem or achieve the same goal.
On Facebook, what is the parallel? I'm on Facebook so that I can keep in touch and communicate with my friends. My intent is to see stories about my friends about their social interactions, parties, etc. I want to find something to do and see what they've been up to. I want to see the cool new product they bought in action and pictures from the amazing vacation they took - what I don't want to see is that they bought /something/ from Amazon or that they're planning a trip I'm not invited to. Facebook is about sharing your life, your past, your "timeline", not your purchases and plans.
Google's ad relevance was not always what it is today. As marketers got better and the algorithm improved, the ads gained relevance to the user and became more valuable. In facebook's case, marketers will have to figure out how to create ads that are relevant to the News Feed context rather than the search context, but I don't think that the social context is inherently unusable for ads -- it just hasn't been figured out yet.
Facebook has no such mechanism and that is it's big problem. IMHO
Of course, Google couldn't get away with that because it would torpedo the quality of their product and erode their market share because search doesn't have strong network effects.
It seems like Facebook is betting that the stronger network effects in social will save them from the forces of the free market on this one. I guess we'll see if they're right.
We've implemented Open Graph as well for some brands - It appears as a user action on a brand, instead of the brand directly reaching out. That's an implicit recommendation from a friend - Much more powerful than a branch explicitly recommending themselves.
No, it's not. "Bob just watched a video on Socialcam" is an ad. I can distinguish it from content just fine.
So it's not the best ad.
(I don't yet have a more broad and vivid name, but it should evoke the idea that this is a battle to enclose/own/monopolize parts of people's attention/mind/voice, subtly enough they don't recoil away.)
I think the 'single column newsfeed' will soon be recognized, despite its usefulness, as a somewhat abusive interface pattern. It artificially heightens the sense of novelty by mixing very unlike (and often repetitive) items. It artificially heightens the sense of urgency with the rapid decay of position down the page. Such 'cognitive sweeteners' bring more attention and excitement in the present but ultimately aren't good for the audience: they're noise rather than signal. Eventually countervailing habits will develop.
I wonder if that's what's in it for Caldwell's App.net. Facebook and Twitter can't let users break out of their false-prioritized presentation, without breaking their promotional business models. So anything which better ranks, summarizes, and filters items for a user's attention is a potential threat. Not so on App.net: there you might pay for a less-abusive interface (advanced, non-sugary reading software).
Charge corporate customers all you want but if I ever pay as a user, I'm out. Make current free features paid? I'm out.
Roll out new features and charge for them? That's fine.
M. Zuckerberg seems like a smart guy who is passionate about the product - product guys aren't usually asswipes. Really interested in seeing where this goes. Also, far as I know, there are no proven models for monitizing human interaction in real lide, let alone in the virtual world. Traditionally, we've focused on charging for experience, not interaction.
From the article:
We can expect to see Facebook deemphasizing traditional advertising units in favor of promoted news stories in your stream. The reason is that the very best advertising is content. Blurring the lines between advertising and content is one of the most ambitious goals a marketer could have.
Bringing earnings expectations into this, the key to Facebook 'fixing' their mobile advertising problem is not to create a new ad-unit that performs better on mobile. Rather, it is for them to sell the placement of stories in the omnipresent single column newsfeed. If they are able to nail end-to-end promoted stories system, then their current monetization issues on mobile disappear.
I still hope it's rather their users who will disappear.