"People consistently tell us that if they're going to see ads, they want them to be relevant."
"If". This is a conditional sentence. What if the condition is not met?
What if they want to avoid ads? What do they tell FB when asked "Ads or no ads, free or small fee, which would you prefer?"
I suspect the participants in Facebook's questioning were not asked that question. Or, if they were, FB is not going to use the results in their PR and lobbying efforts.
There is a slogan one might see on the FB homepage, something like:
"Facebook is free and always will be."
As if the user's primary concern would be that they would sometime have to pay for using FB. (Not privacy or the security of their personal information.)
The slogan raises more questions than it answers.
If FB is "free" forever, then who covers the operating costs of FB?
Where does Zuckerberg's fortune come from?
Who finances the next FB acquisition of a perceived competitor or their risky bets chasing "the next big thing"?
If it isn't you the user who is about to sign up or sign in, then how much does your opinion matter to FB?
Wouldn't it stand to reason that FB would be catering to whomever is paying the bills for FB? (Not you.)
FB is not free for them.
Of course investors and advertisers paying FB expect something in return for their payments. They are not paying into FB's accounts just to keep FB afloat. They are not paying FB simply to sustain a website and apps for people to share photos, video, messages. (And that is probably all users want or need. They certainly never told FB they wanted data collection, monitoring and manipulation of their online behaviour, nor advertisements.)
Assuming FB has covered its operating costs, then whatever it is that FB must then deliver -- i.e. not the webpage and apps to help people to communicate, but the data collection, monitoring, manipulation, etc. -- comes at a further cost, not necessarily a monetary one. The question is, "Who bears it?"
I think it is becoming clear that this "cost" is more than simply "attention" or "time". There are serious impacts FB's work is having on an enormous number of people. The jury is still out on whether this is a net positive or a net negative.
Not really. Advertisers want access to us, not to our behavior. The goal is not to advertise to a behavior. The goal is to advertise to a person who will buy. Behavior is just a proxy to the real goal: selling something to a person.
"If". This is a conditional sentence. What if the condition is not met?
What if they want to avoid ads? What do they tell FB when asked "Ads or no ads, free or small fee, which would you prefer?"
I suspect the participants in Facebook's questioning were not asked that question. Or, if they were, FB is not going to use the results in their PR and lobbying efforts.
There is a slogan one might see on the FB homepage, something like:
"Facebook is free and always will be."
As if the user's primary concern would be that they would sometime have to pay for using FB. (Not privacy or the security of their personal information.)
The slogan raises more questions than it answers.
If FB is "free" forever, then who covers the operating costs of FB?
Where does Zuckerberg's fortune come from?
Who finances the next FB acquisition of a perceived competitor or their risky bets chasing "the next big thing"?
If it isn't you the user who is about to sign up or sign in, then how much does your opinion matter to FB?
Wouldn't it stand to reason that FB would be catering to whomever is paying the bills for FB? (Not you.)
FB is not free for them.
Of course investors and advertisers paying FB expect something in return for their payments. They are not paying into FB's accounts just to keep FB afloat. They are not paying FB simply to sustain a website and apps for people to share photos, video, messages. (And that is probably all users want or need. They certainly never told FB they wanted data collection, monitoring and manipulation of their online behaviour, nor advertisements.)
Assuming FB has covered its operating costs, then whatever it is that FB must then deliver -- i.e. not the webpage and apps to help people to communicate, but the data collection, monitoring, manipulation, etc. -- comes at a further cost, not necessarily a monetary one. The question is, "Who bears it?"
I think it is becoming clear that this "cost" is more than simply "attention" or "time". There are serious impacts FB's work is having on an enormous number of people. The jury is still out on whether this is a net positive or a net negative.