Quotes du jour

just because ads are socially targeted, it doesn’t make me want more ads. Fred Stutzman. Also, Spamminess is the death of a network, socially targeted or no.

And Nick Carr:

  Yes, today is the first day of the rest of advertising’s life.
  I like the way that Zuckerberg considers “media” and “advertising” to be synonymous. It cuts through the bullshit. It simplifies. Get over your MSM hangups, granddads. Editorial is advertorial. The medium is the message from our sponsor.
  Marketing is conversational, says Zuckerberg, and advertising is social. There is no intimacy that is not a branding opportunity, no friendship that can’t be monetized, no kiss that doesn’t carry an exchange of value. The cluetrain has reached its last stop, its terminus, the end of the line. From the Facebook press release: “Facebook’s ad system serves Social Ads that combine social actions from your friends – such as a purchase of a product or review of a restaurant – with an advertiser’s message.” The social graph, it turns out, is a platform for social graft.
  The Fortune 500 is, natch, lining up…]

Paul Boutin:

  Your Facebook profile is your public persona: The music, books, TV shows, political candidates, and celebrities you love or hate. The site’s ad model is based on personal endorsements–cool stuff, important stuff, and things that make you look good when they show up in everyone else’s news feed. I’m sure there are people who’ll blog about their socks. But there aren’t 50 million of them, and they won’t keep their friends long.
  The secret of Google’s success? They let you market anything, no matter how uncool, to anyone who can figure out a PC. We can Google for anything and buy it without anyone knowing. Google for “dandruff,” “hemorrhoids,” or “erictile disfunction” [sic]. Boom, boom, and boom–$4 billion adds up fast. Do you think I’m going to let Facebook use me to hawk Preparation H to fellow writers? Not a chance.

Dave Winer:

  Advertising will get more and more targeted until it disappears, because perfectly targeted advertising is just information. And that’s good!

Ian Wilker

  my impression is that SocialAds makes a systemic feature out of the fake profile, which “fan-sumers” can friend and flack to their friends — clutter up their friends’ News Feed with info about a brand.
  Blech. The whole thing gives me a pretty visceral flashback to being AmWay’d by a guy I’d seen as a friend — soon as I realized he’d gotten back in touch with me not to catch up on old times but to attempt to siphon money out of me I very nearly slugged him.

Brian Oberkirch:

  Here we are now, monetize us…
  To recast it: conversations are markets.
This entry was posted in News, problems, VRM. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Quotes du jour

  1. Doc: from the press release the following quote:
    “People will not be able to opt out of these social ads or turn them off, at least for now, unless they stop revealing information about themselves on Facebook. Says Zuckerberg: “It is an ad-supported service. It is a free service.”

    You couldn’t be more right Mark! This is the Catch 22 of web 2.0. Facebook creates a service, drawing users to it by providing it for free, provide the user with the false illusion that his privacy is safe and then leverages the user profiles and the Social Graph network Facebook ‘owns’ and protects but didn’t create himself (the users did) by monetizing with ads.

    SocialAds are based upon an entirely wrong assumption of friendship in the wrong context. It isn’t going to work.

  2. The cynics are going to have to do a better job. Will it not work because:

    1. People will abandon Facebook in droves for this perceived injustice? (umm, the people have joined the bargain for ad-supported email now number in the hundreds of millions. And email is more private than Facebook).

    2. People will not click on ads? (Seth Godin thinks so, but the author of “All Marketers Are Liars” presents no sweeping metrics of click-through rates.)

    Sheesh. If only “consumer advocates” exerted a tenth of the attention to the fact that $850 million was going to the Fox News Channel from cable subscribers without anybody knowing about it.

  3. John Quimby says:

    Saying that ad supported content can’t work raises the question, “when?” as in – when won’t it work?

    Pay for play separates users from content. Valuable content consumes valuable resources to produce and distribute and intellectual property rights law means that you can rent content but you cant actually own it.
    Those are three reasons why the ad model will continue to be a viable answer.

    In the Jeff Jarvis post from the Guardian, he says that overall ad cash will decline. Again the question, “Compared to what?”. Is he measuring static expectations based on an artificially limited number of channels and comparing them to an open market with unlimited possibilities? I wonder how much radio advertising cost per point in 1927.

    Once the cost per point to reach a mass audience drops to fractions of a penny there could be a drop in the value of overall spending. Conversely we’re already seeing a staggering increase in the number of marketing messages out there – and yes I would include My Space and Face Book pages. Everybody is in the market for something.

    Just so you know, I’m in the midst of webvideo content creation right now so I am an active partisan. I’d say that as sure as Little Orphan Annie was brought to you by Ovaltine, the ad-for-content model is here to stay.

  4. It seems as if anyone can create a Facebook page, so what’s to stop someone from creating a SocialAd (or Beacon, or whatever) that advocates from the customer’s side? Hate Dell? Join a group of Dell haters, create a I Hate Dell page, offer viral video rants that spread an “anti-sumer” meme faster than “fan-sumer” recommendations. VRM has just as much to gain here, I think, as anything. We’ll see what happens.

  5. Doc Searls says:

    John, I have no problem with advertising-supported content. I do have a problem with the belief that there is no other way. That’s one reason for VRM. Which, if it succeeds, will not get rid of advertising, but will reduce dependence on it, at least in some cases. As others have said, we’re talking about ‘and’ logic here.

  6. Doc Searls says:

    Kawika, good point. In fact, I’d be surprised if that didn’t happen.

  7. John Quimby says:


    I think we’re on the same page. Now I have to go look up VRM.

    ; )


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *