Facebook’s “new?” advertising strategy

So the success that Facebook has been enjoying lately just doesn’t seem to be enough for the little SNS that could… A report from the Wall Street Journal states that Facebook is looking to “translate its popularity into bigger profits” by offering advertisers direct access to their targeted demographic consumers.  Back in May, when Facebook opened its platform to all those (mostly) annoying third-party applications, Zuckerburg stated the lofty goal of becoming the Internet’s social networking hub. Apparently, this 3 month-old goal is no longer enough… profits, we need profits… we need lots and lots of profits.

Facebook is certainly within its right to exploit the popularity of this phenomena, why not?  What’s the point of offering the service and collecting all this data if it can’t be used towards lining the company’s shareholders pockets.  And advertising is all they got.  As the WSJ articleput it, “While the Web site had roughly 30.6 million visitors in July, the company says it needs to do a better job profiting from its huge user base.”

I love how Zuckerberg still plays the role of the dotcom darling, presenting Facebook as a little independent start-up who is holding out against the big corporate bullies like Viacom and Yahoo.  Never mind that Facebook is financially backed by Accel Partners.  Two of the twelve Silicon Valley investors at Accel  who were involved in the Facebook investment are Jim Breyer and Kevin Efrusy.  As was reported in an earlier blog, Mr. Breyer is also:

• The Lead / Presiding Independent Director, and Chairman of the Strategic Planning and Finance Committee on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc (WMT),
• The founding Chairman of the Strategic Planning and Finance Committee on the board of Marvel Entertainment (MVL)
• The Lead/Presiding Independent Director at RealNetworks (RNWK), and a number of privately held companies such as BBN Technologies, Brightcove, Facebook, Global Grind Digital, ModelN, and Prosper Marketplace.”

Kevin Efrusy is also on a number of boards of directors, including BBN Technologies.  In fact these two are the only two who appear to be involved in Facebook on the whole team… incidently, they are also the only two who are involved with BBN Technologies.

BBN Technologies has been around for a while, since 1948 in fact, if their corporate timeline is to be believed as accurate.   In 1969, BBN Technologies launched ARPANET, the first version of the modern day Internet.  In1982, BBN Technologies “won the contract to build and operate the worldwide Defense Data Network for the Department of Defense” and in 1984, they developed the data encryption standards for the NSA,  DARPA and the Air Force.  Since then, they’ve worked on a number of military and defense projects, as well as educational and voice recognition software, they’ve won awards from NASA and are, generally, the company that provides the technology and support which powers the Internet.  Among other things, they currently offer data mining solutions  boasting, “There has never been so much information available so easily”; and information security using their R&D contracts with the NSA and DARPA to add to their impressive credentials.

Now I don’t want to sound like a conspiraloon, but the connections are interesting, are they not?  I mean if you think about the type of information that is being exchanged on Facebook… it might make for a neat little database to monitor potential national security threats… not that anyone would ever be stupid enough to use Facebook to do such a thing… at least I don’t think anyone would be that stupid…

But away from such speculation and back to the business of direct marketing.

In my experience, people don’t really care too much about their data privacy in matters like these.  I myself have come to the same conclusion about Facebook, the information that I provide on my Facebook and the things I do on there while I’m logged on, are seemingly inconsequential.  For example, right now I am having a back and forth wall battle about not being able to attend a dear friend’s bachelor party, and I have just added the annual Halifax Zombie Walk event for Saturday.  I don’t have any of my “favorite” things listed… I play Scrabble with friends and look at their pictures.  Facebook has none of my real-life contact information, save for an email address I created specifically for the purposes of Facebook.  And, Facebook will never acquire any of my financial information… ever…. As long as the advertising doesn’t get too in my face, the introduction of this new policy will not alter my uses of Facebook.

However, for some reason, the operators of these sites think that in your face advertising still works.  They think that if the link presented is attractive enough, and appeals to the viewer enough, the link will be clicked… but even as the link is clicked, that doesn’t mean a transaction will occur.  I have often wondered how much online advertising in this way actually pays off.  Is targeted online advertising more effective than regular advertising not in terms of clicks, but in terms of actual transactions?

Take MySpace for example… it is the excessive advertising and spam that has driven away most of its moderate users.  The intense users don’t even notice the ads, and the new users generally aren’t trusting enough of the Internet in general to make purchases online.

I think it’s funny that people assume privacy on Facebook, and that Facebook presents it’s “privacy” policy as protection for the user, when it appears to be more a way for Facebook to protect its data, for them to say who has third-party rights and who doesn’t.  What would really impress me, and perhaps the only thing that would lead me to believe that Facebook did care about the privacy of its users, would be for it to release a list of the major third-party users of Facebook data.  Then, the user can make an informed decision as to whether or not they really wanted to use this particular SNS, instead of using it and hoping that no real harm is being done by it.

Which Web 2.0? Full paper now linked

My conference paper is now linked on the ACSIS blog…

Which Web 2.0? Facebook, MySpace and why context matters « The ACSIS Blog

Bridging and Bonding on Facebook and MySpace

The following is the “findings” and “interpretation” from my forthcoming: “Which Web 2.0: Facebook, MySpace and why context matters” which I will be presenting at the “Towards a Social Science of Web 2.0″ Conference coming up in September. The full paper will be available on the ACSIS Lab Blog soon.

Profile/Identity Differences

The first, most obvious difference when one has logged onto each site, is based on the profile appearance. Where the Facebook profile is uniform with the same colours and layout , the MySpace profile allows users to edit the profile by adding html tags. Profiles on both sites display an avatar, which is a graphical icon that demarks the user, and also show relevant user information such as location, sexual preference, job, and education. Facebook, however, allows for more detailed information regarding jobs and education. Both profiles also have sections dedicated to user favorites, such as favorite music and movies. The basic MySpace profile allows the user to play a song of their choice whereas the Facebook profile does not unless third-party applications are added. Where Facebook has a single type of profile, MySpace has specific profiles available for musicians, comedians and authors.

Both sites give the user default space to store photos. By default space, I mean that nothing has to be done to the profile to allow for uploading and sharing photos. MySpace gives default space to store video as well, but uploading and sharing video on Facebook requires the addition of a third-party application. The MySpace profile also comes with its own blog. The MySpace blog has a separate website address than the profile page. Users can subscribe to other user’s blog and create preferred lists and blog rings as well. Facebook does not have a blog feature; rather it has something called “Notes” which is different than a blog because it does not allow for easy html embedding. In addition to the blog, the MySpace profile has a comment space, where users can leave messages or embed html tags of graphics or video for one another. The comment feature on Facebook is called “The Wall”. The Wall is for text only messages, if users want their profile to handle graphics or videos they have to install third-party applications. Both sites have email and instant messaging options.

Another profile-related difference between the two sites was based on the perceptions of profile privacy. Overall more privacy is assumed on Facebook than MySpace, even though Facebook prohibits the use of pseudonyms. Of those surveyed that used of both platforms 68% believed that Facebook was more private than MySpace. It is possible that this belief is derived from the appearance of Facebook having more privacy settings simply because the Facebook profile is more complex and can potentially reveal more personal information. In both cases, users have complete control of their profile privacy, in terms of determining who can view different aspects of their profile however MySpace users appear to be less aware of this function.

Other users’ identities are questioned more on MySpace than Facebook as well because Facebook does not allow users sign up with apparent pseudonyms. This led to an overall perception that “real-people” used Facebook, but on MySpace, the other user’s identity was not as transparent. “Alex” (30, Male, New York) said of MySpace, “It’s a house of mirrors,” and went onto say, “Somehow Facebook seems more intimate – for better or worse – but I feel like there is a lot more communication through Facebook. After a while with MySpace, I started to wonder what it was all about – seemed like a space purely for self promotion… Facebook feels more private, which makes me less censorious of what I post – it offers more privacy, in turn, people end up sharing more of themselves, ironically…”

“George” (38, Male, Virginia) indicated that the real-life anchor of Facebook made it his preference between the two sites, “I prefer Facebook. I like it because the names you see are the names of real people, and that they’re sorted alphabetically so when you’re looking for a specific someone that you haven’t seen in a long while you can easily browse your friends friend list and find people you know.”

One respondent, who is a burlesque performer, made use of the anonymity that MySpace provides. She indicated that although she used Facebook more, the detachment of MySpace from her “real-world” made her feel more comfortable in revealing her performance identity. “I use Facebook more. I prefer it. It’s come to the point where I use Facebook for the ‘real’ me and MySpace is more for my burlesque alter-ego… I post burlesque pictures on MySpace and have other burlesque performers and troupes as friends. I do have real friends on both sites, but on Facebook I try to keep it just as people I actually know. The two do intersect, because “KL” is a big part of me, however I try to keep my burlesque side off of Facebook. I have family on Facebook and they don’t know about my burlesque life. I’d prefer to keep it that way so as to avoid having to justify my choices. I realize that they will find out eventually… But I don’t have to make it easy for them.”

So while the main profile differences are driven by the technical specifications of each of the sites, these differences allow the user to negotiate how they represent themselves in their profiles. While both platforms allow the user to reveal the same types of information about themselves, users tend to consider the platform itself in that negotiation.

Friends

Both Facebook and MySpace operate on the notion of connecting friends. However, the differences in how people represent themselves will lead to differences in the types of friends that are made on each site. In fact, not a single Facebook user indicated that their friends list was mostly made up of people that they did not know compared to 26% of MySpace users who indicated that most of their friends were people that they had never met face-to-face. Of that 26%, 13% indicated that those people were musicians and 13% indicated that they were people that they had met on MySpace. On Facebook, when you add a new friend you are given the option of noting how you know that person. While there is an option for “I don’t know this person” you are not actually allowed to select it.

MySpace does not have such restrictions on friending practices. It is not uncommon on MySpace to get a friend request from strangers and for that initial contact to turn into an important connection in the user’s life. One survey respondent noted, “I met a few people through MySpace that turned into “real life” friendships, including my closest pal.” Of MySpace users, 13% indicated that most of the contacts on their friends list were people that they had met on MySpace.

The average number of friends for those using Facebook was 90, whereas for MySpace users it was 347. Number of friends appeared to be more meaningful for users on Facebook than on MySpace, perhaps due to the assumptions of false identity on MySpace. When asked about the importance of “how many” friends one has, “Adrian” (35, Male, Saskatchewan) offered an interesting interpretation of the potential value of “friends”, “We’re so used to thinking about capital as a physical unit (coins, bills, bank card), capital finds different expressions in cyberspace. Or maybe, since capital is already a cypher, abstract cyberspace objects run the risk of becoming capital. Because those aren’t really your friends – they’re markers. Also, when you consider that information gathering for advertising has become a huge revenue model for the web, it’s not surprising that social networks would encourage the friends-as-capital notion. I imagine that viral marketers are having a field day with Facebook.”

“Roger” (30, Male, Quebec) relates the same idea to basic notions of schoolyard popularity, “You can compete socially with an objective and empirical foundation to back you up – how many friends do you have? And of course subjectively as well – I have cool friends, look there they are, everyone thinks they are cool, and this makes me cooler by association. Whereas before, such things went unspoken (which they still are, for the most part) but now they are documented.”

Most people interviewed indicated that they would only actually interact with a small group of people within their friends list:

“Charlene: Do you find that Facebook has allowed you to build stronger relationships with people? Like if you weren’t on Facebook do you think you would still be as connected to your friends lives?

Adrian : It’s hard for me to say with any degree of accuracy whether Facebook has strengthened relationships with people, if only because it’s a relatively recent site, and I still consider myself a Facebook novice. I mean, I’ve only got 200 friends. What kind of lame-o noob am I? I can definitely say that Facebook has enabled me to keep a closer eye on my friends’ lives, and it’s brought old friends back into my life. Most of it, though, is useless information to me, a highly personalized form of spam about other people. Sometimes it feels more like voyeurism or surveillance than genuine interaction, which is a truly important distinction. Simply knowing someone’s movements does not substitute for actual interaction, and that’s what Facebook encourages. It may be accurate to say that Facebook is designed to take all the hard work out of friendship.

On the other hand, the interactions I’ve experienced on Facebook have been a great joy. I’ve had conversations with people I never thought I’d ever see again. Out of the two hundred friends, though, I only keep with a handful. The rest are shiny objects that, crowlike, I’ve collected.

I’m wondering about our notions of being ‘connected’ on Facebook, since connection online is no guarantee of physical friendship or intimacy as we generally understand it. I feel it turns us more into surveillance nodes.

Charlene: Why do you think it’s important to have a friend’s list full of others that you don’t really interact with?

Adrian: Maybe because it makes you feel connected, even if the connection is pretty much the equivalent of occasionally peering through their window and going away again. It’s interesting to watch the paths of other people’s lives, especially ones from your past. I said in my last post that Facebook takes the effort out of friendship, but it’s probably better to say that it takes the hard work out of casual social relations.”

On Facebook, this feeling of connectedness has much to do with connection to the user’s past; 77% of Facebook users agreed with the statement “If it wasn’t for Facebook I probably wouldn’t interact with old friends”. Further, 30% of Facebook users indicated that their main reason for signing up to the site was to get back into contact with old friends, compared to only 8% of MySpace users who indicated the same. Also 39% indicated that their Facebook friends list was mostly comprised of old friends or classmates or co-workers compared to 19% of MySpace users.

So the notion of “friends” appeared to have different meanings for users of Facebook and MySpace. This was reflected in the types of friends people made on each site, and the ways that they became friends; friends could connect (and reconnect) on Facebook, and friends could be made on MySpace.

User Preferences and Activities

Of the users who maintained profiles on both MySpace and Facebook, an overwhelming majority indicated that they preferred Facebook. This was seen at both the quantitative and qualitative levels. More people said that if they had to give up one of the two, it would be MySpace that they gave up (72%); more people said that Facebook was more fun (82%) and more interactive (77%) than MySpace; and more people said that Facebook was easier to use (78%). Table 4 shows some of the comparisons users of both sites made between them.

Regarding the technical differences of the two sites, Roger said, “If I look at both with a critical eye, and try to assess which does a better job overall, I would give Facebook the nod for clarity of design and function. MySpace is a gigantic mess design wise and functionality wise.” Alex reiterates this sentiment, “I also like the interface of Facebook more, and the way it functions. It feels like it is well taken care of, whereas MySpace feels neglected by its administrators, and doesn’t quite know what to do with itself. The ads also seem more blaring on MySpace.” “Fred” (20, Male, Ohio) said, “I prefer Facebook and spend much more time on it. I think it’s mostly the format that I like better…easier to communicate, faster to navigate without all the excess pictures and movies and music (although with all the new applications it’s getting more like MySpace every day). I still maintain both accounts because there are friends on each that aren’t on the other. They aren’t arranged in any specific way…..I guess I’m just too lazy to get rid of one.”

Users had different reasons for signing up to each of the platforms. However, many users of both also indicated that they used the two platforms for different types of activities; where Facebook was mainly used to keep in contact with existing friends, MySpace was used for music and blogs; 26% of MySpace users indicated that most of the people on their friends list were musicians. Roger noted, “I prefer neither as I use them for different things. MySpace is excellent for bands and sharing music, which is my primary MySpace motivation. Facebook is excellent for keeping in touch with friends and stalking old ones.” “Elizabeth” (33, New Brunswick) also said, “I use MySpace for blogs and music, and Facebook for mail/finding old friends.” Adrian also indicated that he used Myspace for music related reasons, “When I do use MySpace, it’s in a professional capacity. I often have to keep in touch with musicians as part of my job, and it’s much easier to find and communicate with them on MySpace.”

“Rhonda” (31, F, Northern Ireland) preferred MySpace stating, “MySpace is the King. Facebook I don’t understand yet. I’m on Bebo, too… but I can’t post links or pictures on Facebook (or Bebo, for that matter- they both frustrate me-) whereas, MySpace, I know what I’m doing, and I have “friends” from Real Life; The Past; England, USA, and Canada… but it’s the blogs, that hook me, on MySpace. There’s comments, and mail, on all the sites- and my email addresses, too, of course- and IMing- it’s great! – But blogs? Pure class. I don’t need TV any more. I’ve got blogs to read. And these are high class blogs. The people I’ve discovered on Myspace are geniuses. (Genuii??)”

Given that MySpace is a popular place for artists of all types to promote their work, and the malleability of the user profile, it is understandable that it was viewed as a place which enhanced creativity; 67% of users of both sites indicated that MySpace allowed them to be more creative. Further, 45% of MySpace users indicated that contacts made through MySpace had benefited them creatively, compared to 29% of Facebook users.

When asked about other types of social benefits of each of the platforms, more users of MySpace also indicated that contacts they had made on MySpace have benefited them educationally; 32% compared to 20% of Facebook users. Neither platform was associated with direct professional benefits. More users of both platforms indicated that their use of Facebook had more real-life effects (78%) and 49% of Facebook users indicated that Facebook has benefited their social life.

Interpretations:

Where Facebook operates based on grounding in reality, MySpace offers a more abstracted social networking experience. MySpace is more used and perceived as a form of entertainment, or a stage for performance; whereas Facebook serves as a communication tool best.

Overall, respondents preferred Facebook over MySpace; they used it more and preferred its technical specifications and design. But beyond preference, Facebook appeared to matter more in people’s lives. Perhaps this is because Facebook is a place where users can neatly “collect” all of their family and personal friends, from the past and present. In this, the Facebook version of the self does not have to be deliberately constructed; rather it emerges as the user forges more connections between Facebook and the real-world.

While friend collecting is also a practice that has been identified on other SNSs, and MySpace in particular (Boyd, 2006), the main difference on Facebook is that the friends collected are connected to users’ daily lives, rather than “fakesters, celebrities and commercial profiles” (Boyd, 2006). Because of this, number of friends and types of associations can be perceived as more meaningful on Facebook, so it becomes the high-school popularity contest, quantified.

Due to its grounding in reality, Facebook appears to facilitate bonding types of social relations; relations among people who already share similar social connections through contexts that are rooted to users’ known realities. These contexts include geographic (place-based) and institutional (school, work, family) realities. Trust is implicit in these relations because they are largely occurring between people who have already met, or are in some way familiar to one another. There is little questioning of the authenticity of the other’s identity because the other is already known to you in some other real-life context. Facebook is a tool best used to maintain friendships, or at least it leaves the user feeling more connected to their friends.

Social relations on Myspace are perhaps more complex than on Facebook due to the lack of implicit real-world anchors revealed through users’ profiles and/or friends’ list. There appears to be more identity negotiation on the site in terms of the user’s representation of their own identity, and the user’s trust in other members’ identities. Because some users report that MySpace is a place for their “alter-ego” to exist, it may be that social relations are viewed as more abstract.

MySpace socializing appears to be based more on psychological factors, rather than social ones. Trust on MySpace needs to be negotiated among friends, who are often perfect strangers or potentially fictional “characters” (Dwyer, 2006). Because of this, social relations are viewed as more superficial and of less consequence, even though more MySpace users perceived real world benefits from their MySpace interactions than Facebook users. This may, however, be simply a matter of time, as most respondents of either or both sites had been using MySpace longer than Facebook.

Overall, social relations that are formed on Myspace, that is connections between ‘real’ users, are best thought of as the bridging type; members use the platform to reach out to strangers or “those which are in sufficiently different circumstances” than their own (Conrad 2007). Although there will be some type of bonding agent in these relationships (such as appreciation of similar music), these relationships are occurring between “unnatural acquaintances” (Conrad, 2007), in that they only exist because of MySpace.

The MySpace network is a more egocentric based one (Boyd 2006) where users can not only define their self through the quantity of associations (number of friends), but also the quality of associations (interests, music, concepts). Relationships that are formed on Myspace which do not have real-life grounding are those which exist purely for their own sake and are based on representation and interpretation of the self alone. The Myspace platform appears to have more cultural value than social networking value. It is a means of staying connected to, and the creation of, user-created culture; music, visual arts and writing in the form of blogs.
References:

Boyd, Danah. 2006. “Friends, Friendster and Top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites.” First Monday 11.

 

Conrad, David. 2007. “Defining Social Capital.”

 

Dwyer, Catherine. 2007. “Digital Relationships in the “MySpace” Generation: Results from a Qualitative Study.” in 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii.