How many dollars, worker hours, member hours of attention and words written about it have gone into Facebook’s growth? It now stands as a behemoth of businesses with astronomical growth and activity. For its first few years it didn’t bother itself with ROI or revenue models. But since it went public 2 years ago, the pressure has been on to make money fast for its shareholders.
Facebook news feeds now have increasingly bothersome native advertising interrupting the content its members really want to read. Native ads look like posts and are created to catch readers not paying attention and lure them into clicking. So, are they working? It seems that some advertisers have their doubts.
Of course it’s long been known that people who join social media channels do so to socialize, not shop. They converse on Facebook and shop on Amazon. In this article, @BrendanGahan cites a “recent study” that found that…
…companies’ posts only reach around 6% of their fans organically on Facebook. This means if your Facebook page has 100,000 fans, only 6,000 of them are likely to see the post. The other 94,000 won’t know your post existed unless they go to your Facebook page and the chances of that happening are even slimmer. Facebook is hinting in the near future brands and companies should expect organic reach to be zero.
This reality challenges every social platform in its effort to monetize people’s activity as sharers of news and opinion. Being jabbed in the eye with commercial come-ons is not a way to win loyalty, no matter how many of your friends are there to connect with.
What does this mean for Facebook? Hard to say, but as the article suggests, pure content sites like YouTube may very well redirect attention in an environment where video ads allow you to bail after 5 seconds to watch over 5 minutes of action.
What’s the word on the street about the limits to unintentional customer exposure? Are we getting numbed yet as we were to 10 minutes of adds in every half hour of network TV programming?