<rss version="2.0"
					xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
					xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
					xmlns:opensearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearch/1.1/"
					xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
				  >
<channel>
<atom:link href="http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/facebook-biggest-player-advertising-s-540-billion-world/235708/#comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><title><![CDATA[Comments on: How Facebook Becomes the Biggest Player In Advertising's $540 Billion World]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/facebook-biggest-player-advertising-s-540-billion-world/235708/#comments</link>
<language>en-us</language>
<ttl>120</ttl>
<description><![CDATA[Facebook will replace online display advertising as we know it.  It will save digital media by reversing the commodity pricing trend.]]></description>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Peter Friedman]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/facebook-biggest-player-advertising-s-540-billion-world/235708/#comments-103413</link>
<description><![CDATA[You are very welcome, Ben. Refreshing to see another group with a relationship based perspective that is true social.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:46 EDT</pubDate>
<author>Peter Friedman</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Ben Elowitz]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/facebook-biggest-player-advertising-s-540-billion-world/235708/#comments-103389</link>
<description><![CDATA[Thanks for the additional thoughts, Peter. Ben]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:00 EDT</pubDate>
<author>Ben Elowitz</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Ben Elowitz]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/facebook-biggest-player-advertising-s-540-billion-world/235708/#comments-103388</link>
<description><![CDATA[Hi Tom, The reason why Facebook is such a good &#039;switchboard&#039; for connections between brands and consumers is because consumers are, by and large, plugged into it. 

It&#039;s not that marketers must &quot;buy that relationship through Facebook&quot;, it&#039;s that Facebook is the one place they CAN buy, build, and renew their relationships with 900 million consumers. Ben]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:53 EDT</pubDate>
<author>Ben Elowitz</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Peter Friedman]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/facebook-biggest-player-advertising-s-540-billion-world/235708/#comments-103376</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:48 EDT</pubDate>
<author>Peter Friedman</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Tom Cunniff]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/facebook-biggest-player-advertising-s-540-billion-world/235708/#comments-103227</link>
<description><![CDATA[If I understand this line of reasoning, people want an engaged relationship with their deodorant, apple sauce, dish detergent, etc and that marketers can buy these relationships through Facebook.

I find the logic of this hilariously surrealist, but... for purposes of discussion let&#039;s accept this as 100% true.

If a consumer genuinely desires this sort of relationship, why must a marketer buy that relationship through Facebook?

Please note that any standard &quot;social media revolution&quot; answer that explains how Facebook is a &quot;platform&quot;, or that Facebook has a large and engaged audience is invalid because it ignores my question.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:45 EDT</pubDate>
<author>Tom Cunniff</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: DAN AMBROSE]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/facebook-biggest-player-advertising-s-540-billion-world/235708/#comments-103189</link>
<description><![CDATA[you can&#039;t sell relationships. They can&#039;t be bought. Relationships must be earned.]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:12 EDT</pubDate>
<author>DAN AMBROSE</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Greg Cooper]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/facebook-biggest-player-advertising-s-540-billion-world/235708/#comments-103180</link>
<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s not 900 million people. Its 900 million active MONTHLY users. 

http://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2012 10:52 EDT</pubDate>
<author>Greg Cooper</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Wayne Rowe]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/facebook-biggest-player-advertising-s-540-billion-world/235708/#comments-103138</link>
<description><![CDATA[Of the 900 million people that have signed up from day one, FB might have half of them still as active users, but I doubt its that high. But the number has been going down steadily since 2009. Millions more people abandon FB every month than join. And the majority of new accounts are late adopters trying to sell things and third world countries giving it a whirl. Facebook is history.

This proposed advertising model is a techie dream scheme, but completely lacking in the fundamentals of how advertising actually works. And if the advertising fails the company does as well. They are currently plummeting for the same reason. Their ad model made sense on a spreadsheet, but not in the real world. They track user content to find subjects of interest and end up advertising shoes to shoe sellers. Doh.]]></description>
<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2012 13:01 EDT</pubDate>
<author>Wayne Rowe</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: MARCELO SALUP]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/facebook-biggest-player-advertising-s-540-billion-world/235708/#comments-103137</link>
<description><![CDATA[Personally, I think that the entire premise of the argument is flawed. 

Most consumers dont want relationships with 80% of the brands they use every day. Think milk, cereal, coffee, toothpaste, shoes, underwear, soap, shampoo, eggs, toast... these are transactional brands. Most of the time, one buys them in auto pilot. That&#039;s why television advertising was so successful: it could bombard us with messages until something happened. Not the most terribly cost-efficient way to do it but effective.

Then the other relationship most consumers want is &quot;master/slave&quot;. I would like an instant response from Apple when my Mac goes crazy; or from Photoshop when I can&#039;t figure out something; or from Samsung when I can&#039;t figure how to transfer photos within galleries in my S2. Otherwise, nope, I don&#039;t want a fuzzy relationship. I want service and I want it now.

In that sense, social media --and especially Facebook-- lost its way to platitudes like &quot;selling relationships&quot;.

If companies had adopted Facebook as an extension of their customer service centers they would have reduced costs, created legions of happy customers and would be able to use us as a continuous focus group to improve products.

Ooops! They can still do it!

Finally, what makes anyone think that they can &quot;sell&quot; my relationship with something? Even whores don&#039;t kiss!]]></description>
<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:38 EDT</pubDate>
<author>MARCELO SALUP</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: phil goodman]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/facebook-biggest-player-advertising-s-540-billion-world/235708/#comments-103127</link>
<description><![CDATA[When will everyone realize that you can&#039;t sell commerical relationships on social media? What does it take for advertising and marketing companies to understand that if you want to draw the attention to a product or a service besides the price and quality of it, you need to appeal to generational mind-sets. Every generation looks at all the media differently along what they are advertising. If you want to learn what effect sociology has on advertising, go to www.genergraphics.com. Sociolgy is a key factor in successful advertising and marketing. As a side note Baby Boomers have the least brand loyality of any generation,so branding to sell relationships won&#039;t happen on social media.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:39 EDT</pubDate>
<author>phil goodman</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Chris McLoughlin]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/facebook-biggest-player-advertising-s-540-billion-world/235708/#comments-103117</link>
<description><![CDATA[This is well articulated nonsense. While marketers like to pretend that they have &quot;relationships&quot; with consumers, no consumer wants a &quot;relationship&quot; with a marketer. Consumers ask what a brand can do for them, why it delivers value, or what problem it can solve for them. The essence of effective marketing is a clear, engaging, and efficient answer to these questions. TV and print have always facilitated that kind of communication really powerfully. Digital display does it less well. And because Facebook is a terrible creative medium it does it worst. It makes the writer feel uniquely astute to argue for Facebooks &quot;relationship machine&quot;. Other writers felt equally astute explaining the &quot;transformative power&quot; of AOL. We&#039;ll see...]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:53 EDT</pubDate>
<author>Chris McLoughlin</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: JAMES MESKAUSKAS]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/facebook-biggest-player-advertising-s-540-billion-world/235708/#comments-103116</link>
<description><![CDATA[The potential uses for Facebook are legion, but a few reasons why they are not the advertising industry&#039;s penicillin for what ails it.

1. Ubiquity of use is not an argument for advertising effectiveness. Everyone I know uses toilet paper, too, but I&#039;ve not seen any ads on any rolls.
2. Except for the rare example of a Vogue, or the Super Bowl, no one consumes content for the advertising. At most, the relationship with advertising is one of managed hostility. From time to time, an advertising-as-content play makes its way as an artifact of culture that we can all enjoy (Apple&#039;s 1984 ad; Dos Equis&#039; World Most Interesting Man; Volkswagen&#039;s Darth Vader kid). But content as been, and always will be, king. The only reason people go to Facebook is for the content -- either to create it themselves in the form of posts and pictures, or to consume something someone else has posted. Everything else is more or less the equivalent of Out Of Home advertising.
3. Relationships are very important, and advertisers want to have them with their consumers. Alas, Facebook doesn&#039;t have relationships to offer. They have people. They have people having relationships with each other. But they don&#039;t have relationships people are having with Facebook, and they don&#039;t have relationships people are having with brands to offer up. Most of the relationships people are having on Facebook are with each other, or with entertainment personalities (if those cane be called relationships). But few people are looking for deeper relationships with their mayonnaise. 
4. The best thing Facebook does have to offer is its data, from which brands can figure out how to initiate relationships. The problem is, Facebook is probably not as good at processing the data it has access to as it is at gathering it. Data by itself is dumb. Someone needs to turn that into information. Facebook could make an awful lot of money doing that... at least while it&#039;s still legal to do so. Scarcity of access doesn&#039;t make what little data they do provide more valuable, it just makes people go somewhere else to look for it.
5. The one thing that IS right with this article is in regards to a super network. But that will come from enriching the audience data other publishers have with the data Facebook could potentially provide. Again, Facebook doesn&#039;t have any relationships; it is a platform on which other relationships are built over which they exercise little or no control. But the sort of interest clouds, social graphs, and media and product usage intersects they could demonstrate for other media interests&#039; user bases... THAT would be valuable.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:49 EDT</pubDate>
<author>JAMES MESKAUSKAS</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Mark Dubis]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/facebook-biggest-player-advertising-s-540-billion-world/235708/#comments-103114</link>
<description><![CDATA[I couldn&#039;t agree more that relationships are the next big thing in the evolution of engagement marketing. In the automotive space, nobody understands that better than Carfolks.com. To reach consumers you must provide value, treat them with respect and allow them to have their voice heard. Its a new old idea called creating a neighborhood.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:29 EDT</pubDate>
<author>Mark Dubis</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: LaLa Lu]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/facebook-biggest-player-advertising-s-540-billion-world/235708/#comments-103108</link>
<description><![CDATA[Al Kao what a brutally honest statement! I couldn&#039;t agree more. Who logs on to Facebook and says &quot;gee I wonder what great advertisements await me?!&quot; or &quot;I wonder what I can buy on Facebook today?&quot; - that&#039;s the problem- while marketers continually try AND fail to advertise on the site, WE the users still utilize Facebook for what its ORIGINAL intent was.. a means to socialize.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:32 EDT</pubDate>
<author>LaLa Lu</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Al Kao]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/facebook-biggest-player-advertising-s-540-billion-world/235708/#comments-103101</link>
<description><![CDATA[there&#039;s only one group of people who continually pump up Facebook. the likes of you. wishful thinking - astral projection types, projecting all your hopes and dreams of Facebook and trying to make it a reality.

&quot;The first 100 years of brand advertising was built on the paradigm of a captive audience with interruption advertising in TV, radio, print, and online&quot; -- and back in the day, if you truly are a student of history, there were deathly few content alternatives. first you had print. then radio. then TV and color TV. lastly, online and mobile. 

but in the meantime, PRINT learned to diversify from newspapers and magazines to billboards and from street billboards to building, subway stations, subway cars, to buses, and so on.

then came TV and commercials. then came movies with product placement.

you think consumers don&#039;t see that? you think they don&#039;t see through it all? they simply tolerate. and now you think that magically, because people use social media, that they MUST pay attention to your stupid brand or talk about it?

like a fly on the wall, the more you deluge the consumer with messaging, the less they will pay attention.

the only people who are concerned about making facebook work are media people like you. when you have the time to write an article for a media piece, you&#039;ve lost your edge and have become one of the media types - a talking head.

Facebook has its place. but it will forever be a piece of the pie. Because at the end of the day, Facebook needs users like me a hell of a lot more than I will EVER need Facebook.

So. Use some real critical thinking. Only over-the-hill media and attention hogs like you need Facebook. the rest of us? we use it when we goddamn feel like it.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:45 EDT</pubDate>
<author>Al Kao</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Mark Poprocki]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/facebook-biggest-player-advertising-s-540-billion-world/235708/#comments-103100</link>
<description><![CDATA[Is it possible this will have an interesting effect on politics and the hotly contested legal standings of the private sector? With a fierce increase in &quot;relationships&quot; with brands, might we start to believe (for better or worse) that &quot;corporations are people, my friend&quot;?]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:42 EDT</pubDate>
<author>Mark Poprocki</author>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>