There is only so much attention to go around and only so many items that can be put into a persons feed before it loses any value to that person.
True, but it's reasonable to expect that users might've simply dialed down the noise by "un-liking" whatever pages with which they no longer wanted to be engaged.
So, I don't think it was at all unreasonable for a company to assume that it would have to compete on interest and thus ensure that its content was more compelling/engaging. That versus simply being forced to pay, else reach only 1% of the people they worked so hard to gain as "fans".
Further, if FB's direction should have been obvious to companies, as you say, then FB should certainly have known. So, while encouraging pages/likes/etc., why not telegraph to the businesses that their reach would eventually be so heavily gated behind a paywall?
You're being far too "forgiving" of FB and far too harsh on the companies that were, effectively, on the receiving end of a bait-and-switch.
Comments
True, but it's reasonable to expect that users might've simply dialed down the noise by "un-liking" whatever pages with which they no longer wanted to be engaged.
So, I don't think it was at all unreasonable for a company to assume that it would have to compete on interest and thus ensure that its content was more compelling/engaging. That versus simply being forced to pay, else reach only 1% of the people they worked so hard to gain as "fans".
Further, if FB's direction should have been obvious to companies, as you say, then FB should certainly have known. So, while encouraging pages/likes/etc., why not telegraph to the businesses that their reach would eventually be so heavily gated behind a paywall?
You're being far too "forgiving" of FB and far too harsh on the companies that were, effectively, on the receiving end of a bait-and-switch.