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
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.