Thats because the like button is not the same as permission to spam.
I see tons of websites hiding content before you "Like" the page or nagging users to "Like" the brand, even the big ones.
People hated Facebook previous year because there was tons "spam". Basically every shitty page owner or marketer was thinking this is great, i can send my marketing or "spam" message to everyone dump enough to "Like" for no cost.
Also i don't know why people thing that facebook is worse then google adwords.
In adwords you pay for every click, and lets say it converts. The next time that same user searches for something on google you will again pay for that click, And if you want to re market to that same user, you can do that but you have to pay.
At least with facebook you get some of that reach for free after people liked you page.
Im not going into is it worth the money people pay, and facebook sure is pleased that people keep poring money into its platform thinking it is something its not.
First, if someone likes a page and later does not like the content they can unlike it. They are not hostages of bad pages.
When a page owner publishes a post FB uses a very limited distribution (2% or less) to pretty much force page owners to pay to boost the post. So, you already spent thousands to get people to your page and now you have to pay again to communicate with them. Sorry for saying it this way: That is bullshit.
With AdWords the model is simple: Drive traffic to your site, get registrations and then communicate with your audience on your own terms. That is precisely what the article says brands are doing once they understand facebook's problems.
Sure, you could use the same model with FB. Within limits. They are very aware of the exodus they face and seem to be making moves towards limiting your ability to take the same kind of approach you might with AdWords.
My position is simple: People who sign-up to my page/group are MY audience. I ought to be able to communicate with 100% of my page/group members at no additional cost.
Give users their own moderation tools. Let them decide, not FB. They already have the ability to unlike. That's easy. Next would be a throttling control. Let them choose what percentage of posts they want to see and maybe even set a schedule. So, on Mondays I want 2% of my page/group content to come from the Tesla page; on Tuesday's I want 10% from the Richard Dawkins page and 10% from the America's Cup page, etc.
In other words, no rulings from an immature totalitarian regime. Mimic the freedom of choice that exists on the net. If someone is hell-bent for the Underwater Pumpkin Carving page and don't want to miss a single post it ought to be THEIR CHOICE, not Facebook's.
Note that, as an advertiser, I am not advocating shoving my page's content to all my members. I want to deliver value and have THEM decide if what I am saying is worth their while.
Comments
Thats because the like button is not the same as permission to spam.
I see tons of websites hiding content before you "Like" the page or nagging users to "Like" the brand, even the big ones.
People hated Facebook previous year because there was tons "spam". Basically every shitty page owner or marketer was thinking this is great, i can send my marketing or "spam" message to everyone dump enough to "Like" for no cost.
Also i don't know why people thing that facebook is worse then google adwords. In adwords you pay for every click, and lets say it converts. The next time that same user searches for something on google you will again pay for that click, And if you want to re market to that same user, you can do that but you have to pay. At least with facebook you get some of that reach for free after people liked you page.
Im not going into is it worth the money people pay, and facebook sure is pleased that people keep poring money into its platform thinking it is something its not.
I think you are wrong on many points.
First, if someone likes a page and later does not like the content they can unlike it. They are not hostages of bad pages.
When a page owner publishes a post FB uses a very limited distribution (2% or less) to pretty much force page owners to pay to boost the post. So, you already spent thousands to get people to your page and now you have to pay again to communicate with them. Sorry for saying it this way: That is bullshit.
With AdWords the model is simple: Drive traffic to your site, get registrations and then communicate with your audience on your own terms. That is precisely what the article says brands are doing once they understand facebook's problems.
Sure, you could use the same model with FB. Within limits. They are very aware of the exodus they face and seem to be making moves towards limiting your ability to take the same kind of approach you might with AdWords.
My position is simple: People who sign-up to my page/group are MY audience. I ought to be able to communicate with 100% of my page/group members at no additional cost.
Give users their own moderation tools. Let them decide, not FB. They already have the ability to unlike. That's easy. Next would be a throttling control. Let them choose what percentage of posts they want to see and maybe even set a schedule. So, on Mondays I want 2% of my page/group content to come from the Tesla page; on Tuesday's I want 10% from the Richard Dawkins page and 10% from the America's Cup page, etc.
In other words, no rulings from an immature totalitarian regime. Mimic the freedom of choice that exists on the net. If someone is hell-bent for the Underwater Pumpkin Carving page and don't want to miss a single post it ought to be THEIR CHOICE, not Facebook's.
Note that, as an advertiser, I am not advocating shoving my page's content to all my members. I want to deliver value and have THEM decide if what I am saying is worth their while.