Mediastreet
Tag

facebook

Browsing
In News

Sheryl Sandberg is on the hot seat at Facebook — but ousting her alone wouldn’t solve its problems

No Comments

By 

  • Sheryl Sandberg’s future at Facebook has become an open topic of discussion in recent weeks.
  • Facebook has stumbled through myriad scandals over the past two years and is facing calls for someone to be held accountable for them.
  • There are good reasons for Facebook to oust Sandberg, its chief operating officer, including that she oversaw the groups at the center of many of the fiascos.
  • But firing her wouldn’t be nearly enough to solve Facebook’s problems — and the problems it poses for society.

With all the turmoil at Facebook, the once unthinkable notion that its star executive Sheryl Sandberg would ever be forced out seems to have become the topic on the tips of many tongues.

Investors are discussing it. Some — including yours truly — have called for it. In recent days, CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other company officials have repeatedly been asked about it.

Even Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, was said to have felt that she was on shaky ground earlier this year. And that was before the latest revelations about the company, including that it reportedly tried to limit public disclosures about what it had found out about Russian interference in the 2016 US election and launched a campaign to hit back at critics, including the billionaire financier George Soros.

There are plenty of good reasons Facebook should fire Sandberg, starting with the ugly and anti-Semitic Soros smear. But it would be unfortunate if Sandberg alone ended up taking a fall for the company. Facebook’s problems extend far beyond Sandberg, going all the way up to the CEO’s office. Change at the company really ought to begin at the very top.

Sandberg’s and Facebook’s reputations have fallen steeply

That Sandberg finds herself under fire is an amazing turn of events. As recently as last year, she was widely hailed as a feminist and tech industry icon, thanks to her highly influential book, “Lean In,” and her role at Facebook, where she has helped oversee its growth from a young startup to the global giant it is today.

George SorosTapping into well-worn anti-Semitic smear, Facebook’s public-relations firm tried to tar the company’s critics by linking them with the financier George Soros.Sean Gallup/Getty

But the public perception of Sandberg and her company has changed markedly over the past year because of the series of scandals and fiascos Facebook has found itself in. From Russia’s election interference, which the company didn’t detect until it was too late, to the spread of genocide-stoking propaganda in Myanmar, to multiple security breaches and data leaks, including the one to Cambridge Analytica, to the recent revelations about how it targeted its critics, Facebook has had a gusher of bad news to contend with.

Many happened on Sandberg’s watch. The security team was under her purview, most notably while Russia-linked groups used Facebook to spread their propaganda. Though she says she didn’t know about the Soros smear or that Facebook had hired the public-relations firm that propagated it, she oversaw the company’s communications team and effort.

According to The New York Times, Sandberg was the one who spearheaded the general effort to try to turn the tables on Facebook’s critics, and she repeatedly tried to tone down reports about Russian interference in the election.

Thanks to the stream of scandals and Facebook’s responses — which have increased costs and decreased user growth — the company’s stock has been crushed. It’s down 25% in the year to date but off 39% since hitting its all-time high in July.

Speculation is growing about Sandberg’s future at Facebook

Publicly, at least, Facebook officials are standing by Sandberg. At a lunch meeting with journalists on Tuesday, Patrick Walker, one of Facebook’s top executives in the UK, said there was a “huge upswell” in support for Sandberg inside the company. In an interview with CNN later that day, Zuckerberg expressed his backing of Sandberg.

“I hope we work together for decades more to come,” he said.

Mark ZuckerbergFacebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has publicly expressed support for Sandberg.Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

But these attestations of support of Sandberg have the feel of those given by a president right before he ousts one of his Cabinet members. In his interview, Zuckerberg notably did not directly answer the question asked by CNN’s senior tech correspondent, Laurie Segall, which was whether he could “definitively say Sheryl would stay in the same role.” Instead, he mainly talked about the work she’s done.

Those statements from company officials come amid growing discussion of Sandberg’s role and future at the company — and outright calls for her to leave.

The head of Soros’ foundation harshly criticized Sandberg and the company for the smear perpetrated against Soros. The anti-Facebook groups targeted by it have called for the immediate termination of those responsible, which would presumably include Sandberg.

Meanwhile, the CNBC commentator Jim Cramer contended on Monday that Facebook’s stock would go up if Sandberg resigned. And Anthony DiClemente, an Evercore analyst, said in a research note Tuesday that he was fielding a growing number of calls from investors wondering whether she’ll be ousted because of the “drumbeat of negative press.”

All of this may seem to be just outside noise. But Zuckerberg — in an apparently unusual move — reportedly upbraided Sandberg this spring in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, saying he blamed her for the PR black eye Facebook received for it. Sandberg was said to have been left reeling. And things have only gotten worse for the company since then.

Sacking Sandberg alone wouldn’t solve Facebook’s problems

The company could do a lot worse than to hold Sandberg accountable for its string of scandals. Facebook has failed in spectacular ways in the past two years, and the groups Sandberg oversaw were at the heart of those failures. She drew outsize credit for Facebook’s success. It wouldn’t be unfair for her to take the fall for its failures.

But she shouldn’t be alone. She shouldn’t be its sole or primary scapegoat.

Sandberg answers to Zuckerberg. He fully controls the company, thanks to the voting rights his Facebook shares give him. He can and does direct Facebook as he sees fit.

But more to the point, Zuckerberg is the one who determines how much of the company’s resources and engineering personnel to devote to particular efforts or projects, as Susan Desmond-Hellmann, a company director, recently explained to The Wall Street Journal. Whatever Sandberg’s culpability for the scandals that have befallen Facebook, the buck ultimately stops with Zuckerberg. He too ought to step down.

Chris Wylie London talk Cambridge AnalyticaChris Wylie, the former Cambridge Analytica employee who helped expose the leak of the data of millions of Facebook users to the research firm.Getty Images

Or, since he told CNN “that’s not in the plan,” he should be forced to, perhaps by having Congress abolish the supervoting powers of his shares, which is the basis of his control.

But even that’s not enough. Facebook would pose a threat to society no matter how enlightened and forward-thinking its management. The company itself simply has too much power. It has amassed detailed dossiers on millions of people. It, along with Google, dominates digital advertising and has become a major distributor of news and information.

As has become abundantly clear in the past two years, Facebook has a frightening ability to manipulate people’s attitudes and emotions, as well as spread dangerous and even deadly propaganda both widely and at targeted groups. It’s not just subverting citizens’ privacy on a vast scale — it has the capacity to undermine democracy and civil society as well.

Ultimately, Facebook itself needs to be held accountable for the damage it has caused. It needs to be broken up and regulated.

Yes, Sandberg should resign for her and Facebook’s failures. But that’s only a start.

Feature Image: Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, has faced growing speculation about her future at the company.Drew Angerer/Getty Images

By 

Sourced from Business Insider UK

Read More
By
In News

Facebook turns photos into recipes through new AI system

No Comments

By 

Dive Brief:

  • Facebook’s Artificial Intelligence Research (FAIR) group researchers told Forbes they have developed AI software that can determine what ingredients were used to make food in a photograph and provide a recipe.
  • Although it is a feature that many social media users would likely enjoy, Facebook doesn’t currently have any plans to roll out the recipe-generating AI onto its platforms.
  • “We need to have machines that understand the world. Understand not just the visible in the world, but understand that when you have a cake there’s usually sugar in there,” FAIR’s Montreal lab research scientist and project participant Adrianna Romero told Forbes.

Dive Insight:

Accenture predicts that AI will increase economic growth by an average of 1.7% by 2035, and could boost labor productivity by 40% or more. With the anticipated growth of artificial intelligence, companies across the retail sector and beyond are examining how to effectively incorporate the technology into their business models.

Facebook’s experimentation in AI recipe recognition demonstrates that the interest in linking technology with food flows in both directions. On the one hand, social media can benefit from users taking their online interactions into real-world grocery stores. On the other, as online food promotion is driven by images, it’s a natural step for Big Food to encourage the distillation of these popular photos into ingredients — preferably ingredients with their brand attached.

If Facebook is able to perfect the AI behind taking a photo of some red velvet cake, for example, list the ingredients that went into it, and describe the method required to make it, Big Food would be presented with an opportunity to partner with the social media giant to ensure brand-name products are listed as the required ingredients to replicate a delicious looking photo. Especially in a market where center-aisle packaged food sales are suffering, having access to Facebook and Instagram’s wide user base would provide a much-needed surge in visibility for products that customers usually breeze by in person.

Besides building sales, AI that deciphers consumers’ favorite recipes may help build brand loyalty. If customers routinely recognize that their favorite recipes include certain brands, they are liable to reach for the brand name first in the grocery store, knowing that it will likely be used in their kitchen in the near future.

Furthermore, having AI that prompts consumer engagement is an opportunity for companies to gather individual consumer data to help direct future R&D efforts with a better chance of market success, since they’re more likely to be based on real-life culinary interests. This information would not only help internal R&D efforts, but it would also be another tool for large CPG companies with accelerators and incubators. The large companies would have minimal risk in starting their next investments, because they would keep a better pulse on which trends consumers are interested in replicating in their own homes.

At this point, it is unclear how accurate Facebook’s technology is. The social networking giant is also not the only company working on this kind of technology. When MIT researchers announced last July that they’d built a similar system that was trained on a dataset of one million photos and one million recipes, not all the photographs were identified correctly. Still, if Facebook is able to improve upon accuracy, it could stand a chance to change the way consumers search for recipes, as well as buy their groceries.

By 

Sourced from FOODDIVE

Read More
By
In News

The Battle for the Home

No Comments

By Ben Thompson

If the first stage of competition in consumer technology was the race to be the computer users went to (won by Microsoft and the PC), and the second was to be the computer users carried with them (won by Apple in terms of profits, and Google in terms of marketshare), the outlines of the current battle came sharply into focus over the last month: what company will win the race to be the computer within which users live?

The Announcements

The first announcement came from Amazon three weeks ago: a new high-end Echo Plus, Echo Dots, several Echo devices for use with 3rd party stereos and speakers (or other Echoes), and an updated Echo Show (i.e. an Echo with a screen). All standard fare, and then things got wacky: the company also announced a microwave, a wall clock, smart plugs, a device for the car, and a TV Tuner/DVR, all with Alexa built-in.

Next up was Facebook: earlier this week the company launched the Portal, a video chat device that can track faces, has Alexa integration, and a smattering of 3rd-party apps likes Spotify. The device was reportedly delayed last spring as the company grappled with the fallout of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and was instead launched in the midst of a data exposure scandal.

Third was Google: yesterday the company announced the Google Home Hub — a Google Home with a screen attached, a la the Echo Show — as well as the Pixel 3 phone and the Pixel Slate tablet, along with far deeper integration between Nest home automation products and the Google Home ecosystem.

And, of course, there is Apple, which launched the HomePod earlier this year, and added a few new capabilities with a software update last month.

Each of these companies brings different strengths, weaknesses, go-to-market strategies, and business models to the fight for the home; a question that is just as important of who will win, though, is to what degree it matters.

Strengths

Each of these companies’ strengths in the home is closely connected to their success elsewhere.

Amazon: Amazon deserves to go first, in large part because they were first: while Google acquired Nest in 2014, Nest itself was predicated on the smartphone being the center of the connected home. Amazon, though, thanks to its phone failure, had the freedom to imagine what a connected home might look like as its own independent entity, leading the company to launch the Echo speaker and Alexa assistant in late 2014.

I was immediately optimistic, in part because the Echo was everything the failed Fire phone was not: its success depended not on the integration of hardware and software, the refinement of which a service company like Amazon is fundamentally unsuited for, but rather the integration of hardware and service. It also helped that Amazon had a business model that made sense: on one hand, the investments in Alexa would pay off with services for AWS, and on the other, Amazon’s goal of taking a slice of all economic activity was by definition centered around capturing an ever-increasing share of purchases made for and consumed in the home, and Alexa could make that easier.

That led to an early lead in the development of the Alexa ecosystem, both in terms of “Skills” and also in devices that incorporated Alexa. As I noted in 2016, this made Alexa Amazon’s operating system for the home, and today Alexa has over 30,000 skills and is built into 20,000 devices.

That, though, makes Amazon’s recent announcements that much more interesting: Amazon isn’t simply content with being the voice assistant for 3rd-party devices, it also is making those devices directly. This, by extension, perhaps points to Amazon’s biggest strength: because Amazon.com is so dominant, the company can have its cake and eat it too. That is, just as Amazon.com is both a marketplace and a channel for Amazon to sell its own products, Alexa is both a necessary component of 3rd-party devices and also a driver of Amazon’s own devices; the company faces no strategy taxes in its drive to win.

Google: Google was very late to respond to Alexa; the original Google Home wasn’t announced until May 2016, and didn’t ship until November 2016, a full two years after the Echo. The company was, as I noted above — and as you would expect for a market leader — locked into the smartphone paradigm; an app plus Nest was its answer, until Alexa made it clear this was wrong.

Google, though, has started to catch up, and the reason is obvious: if a home device is about the integration of hardware and services, it follows that the company that is best at services — consumer services, anyways — would be very well-placed to succeed. The company still trails Alexa by a lot in actions/skills (around 2,000) and 3rd-party devices (over 5,000), but Google’s core functionality is plenty strong enough to sell devices on its own. There are still more Echoes being sold, but Google Home is catching up.

To that end, one of the more interesting takeaways from yesterday’s Google event was the extent to which Google is leaning on its own services to sell its devices: not only did the company tout the helpfulness of Google Assistant, it also prominently featured YouTube, particularly in the context of the Google Home Hub. This is particularly noteworthy because Google handicapped the YouTube functionality of the Echo Show, clearly with this product in mind. Google is also including six months of YouTube Premium with a Google Home Hub; indeed, every Google product included some sort of YouTube subscription product.

Apple: The HomePod is exactly what you would expect from Apple: the best hardware at the highest price. The sound is excellent and, naturally, even better if you buy two. The HomePod is also — again, as you would expect from Apple — locked into the Apple ecosystem; this is from one perspective a weakness, but this is the Strength section, and the reality is that people are more committed to their iPhones — and thus Apple’s ecosystem — than they are to home speakers, meaning that for many customers this limitation is a strength.

Along those lines, Apple is clearly the most attractive option from a privacy perspective: the company doesn’t sell ads, has made privacy a public priority, and is thus the only choice for those nervous about having an Internet-connected microphone in their house.

Facebook: Perhaps the most compelling case for Portal is historical. In the introduction I framed the battle for the home as following the battle for the desk and the battle for the pocket. There were, though, intervening battles that were enabled by those fights for physical spaces. Specifically, the PC created the conditions for the Internet, which in turn made smartphones that could access the Internet so compelling. Smartphones, then, created the conditions for social networking (including messaging) to infiltrate all aspects of life.

Might it be the case, then, that just as the Internet was the key to unlocking the potential of mobile, so might social networking be the key to unlocking the potential of the home? That appears to be Facebook’s bet: sure, the device has some neat hardware features, particularly the ability to follow you around the room or zoom out during a call, but neat hardware features can and will be copied. If Portal is to be a successful venture for Facebook, it will be because the tie-in to Facebook’s social network makes this device compelling.

Weaknesses

As is so often the case, each companies’ weakness is the inverse of their strength:

Amazon: Amazon simply isn’t that good at making consumer products. In my experience its devices are worse than the competition both aesthetically and in terms of hardware capabilities like sound quality. In addition, Amazon’s brute force skills approach — it is on the user to speak correctly, not on the service to figure it out — lends itself to more skills initially but a potentially more frustrating user experience.

Amazon also has less of a view into an individual user’s life; sure, it knows what kind of toothpaste you prefer, but it doesn’t know when your first meeting is, or what appointments you have. That is the province of Google in particular, and also Apple. What is more valuable: being able to buy things by voice, or being told that you best be leaving for that early meeting STAT?

Google: As a product Google’s offering is remarkably strong (there are other weaknesses, which I will get into below). The company is the best at the core functionality of a home device, and it knows enough about you to genuinely add usefulness. Its products are also more attractive and better-performing than Amazon’s (in my estimation).

Google does face questions about privacy: the company collects data obsessively — right up to the creepy line, as former CEO Eric Schmidt has said — and that could be a hindrance to the company’s ability to penetrate the home. That said, Google has so far escaped Facebook-level scrutiny, and wisely excluded a camera from the Google Home Hub. Google knows its advantage is in providing information; it has sufficient other avenues to collect it, without putting a camera in your bedroom.

Apple: Apple, even more than Google, seemed blinded by its smartphone success. This isn’t a surprise: the ultimate point of Android was to be a conduit to Google’s services; it follows, then, that if home devices are about services, that Google would be more attuned to the opportunity (and the threat). Apple, on the other hand, is and always will be a product company; the company offers services to help sell its hardware, not the other way around, and it follows that the company would be heavily incentivized to insist that the iPhone and Apple Watch, which both offered attractive hardware margins and were differentiated by the integration of hardware and software, were better home devices.

That, furthermore, explains Apple’s biggest weakness: the relative performance of Siri as compared to Alexa or Google Assistant. The problem isn’t a matter of trivia, but rather speed and reliability. Siri is consistently slower and more likely to make mistakes in transcription than either Alexa or Google Assistant (and, for the record, more likely to fail trivia questions as well). As always, Apple is the most potent example of how strengths equal weaknesses: just as it was inevitable that a services company like Amazon would be poor at product, a truly extraordinary product company like Apple will face fundamental challenges in services.

Facebook: If the strengths of Facebook Portal were largely theoretical, the weaknesses are extremely real: it is, frankly, mind-boggling that the company would launch Portal given the current public mood around the company. And, to be clear, that mood is largely deserved; I wrote last week about the company as a Data Factory, and one of the telling examples was how Facebook lets advertisers use numbers provided for two-factor authentication for targeting. This strongly suggests that, from Facebook’s perspective, data is data: everything is an input, and while the company may promise that Portal is private, one wonders why anyone would believe them.

That notes, I actually suspect Portal data is private; this seems like more of an attempt to enhance the value of the Facebook graph, and thus the app’s stickiness, than to collect more data. The problem, though, is that Facebook is not in the position to expect nuance, and that this product was launched anyways supports the argument that the company’s executives are indeed out of touch.

Go-to-Market

The various go-to-market possibilities for these four companies could very well have been folded into strengths-and-weaknesses, but it’s worth highlighting on its own, given how important an effective go-to-market strategy is in consumer products.

Amazon: This is arguably Amazon’s biggest strength: not only does the company have direct access to the top e-commerce site in the world and one of the largest retailers period — and, because it is them, can skip a retailer mark-up — it also gets access to prime real estate:

 

 

There is not only no question in a consumer’s mind about where to buy an Echo, it is also nearly impossible that they not know about it. Moreover, Amazon has a second trick up its sleeve: it doesn’t stock any of its competitors products, making acquiring them that much more of a hassle.

Google: I highlighted this as a major Google weakness when it launched its #MadeByGoogle line two years ago, but to the company’s credit, it has worked hard to build out its channel. Today Google products are available on most non-Amazon e-commerce sites and in retailers like Best Buy, Target, and Walmart. The company has also invested in advertising to build awareness; there is still a long ways to go, to be sure, and go-to-market remains a Google weakness, but the company has impressed me with its work in this area.

Apple: This is a huge area of strength of Apple as well. The company obviously has a very strong channel, both online and through its retail stores. Both reflect Apple’s biggest strength, which is its brand: there is no company that has more loyal customers, and those customers are tremendously biased to buy an Apple product over a competitors; they are also more likely to be receptive to Apple’s privacy message, perhaps because they care, or perhaps because that is the message that plays to Apple’s strengths.

Facebook: It appears the company learned nothing from the Facebook First flop. The Facebook First, if you don’t recall, was Facebook’s ill-fated phone; it was manufactured by HTC and was discontinued within weeks of launch. There simply was no evidence that customers wanted to pay for a product that was predicated on Facebook integration, and there was certainly no effective go-to-market strategy.

It is hard to see how the Portal will be different: again, the defining feature is that the camera follows you around, a feature that is cool in theory but bizarrely out-of-touch with Facebook’s current perception in the market. Is the company really going to spend the millions necessary to market this thing? And if so, where is it going to be available to purchase? I can see why this product was designed; I see little understanding of how it might be sold.

Business Models

This too ties into strengths-and-weaknesses, but like the go-to-market strategies, is worth calling out in its own right:

Amazon: I explained the company’s business model above: Amazon wants to own the home, because it sells a huge number of items that are used in the home. This is why the company is willing to press its advantage as both a platform and retailer when it comes to Alexa devices: winning has a very direct connection to the company’s ultimate upside.

Google: The business model is a bit fuzzier here: Google makes money through ads sold in an auction where the winner is chosen by the user. That is a model that doesn’t work for voice in particular; affiliate fees are less profitable given that they foreclose the possibility of an advertiser forming a direct relationship with the end user. That noted, the introduction of a visual interface does also offer the possibility of ads.

More noteworthy is the incorporation of YouTube: YouTube has seen the addition of more and more subscription services, including YouTube Premium, YouTube TV, and YouTube Music. All of these work in conjunction with Google’s designs on to the home.

The most compelling business case for Google, though, is the same as it ever was: maintaining a dominant presence in all aspects of a user’s life, not just on the go (in the case of Android) but also in the home provides the data for more effective advertising in the places where it makes sense. No, Google may not sell that many voice ads, but voice interaction will affect what ads are shown in Search, and that is worth an awful lot.

Apple: Apple’s business model is the most straightforward: HomePod is clearly sold at a profit, part of Apple’s strategy of increasing its monetization of its current userbase. This is also a limitation: as noted above, the HomePod is significantly more expensive than any of its competitors.

Facebook: The social network company has the weakest business model story of all: there are no add-on services to sell, and the company has promised not to use the Portal for advertising, for now anyways. The best argument is similar to Google: more data and more engagement means more opportunities to show better-targeted ads on the company’s other products.

Winners and Losers

There are compelling cases to be made for at least three of the four companies:

Amazon: Amazon’s head start is meaningful, and its widespread integration with other products mean it is likely that more people have a device with Alexa integration than not. The company is also highly motivated to win and has the business model to justify it.

Google: I find Google’s case the most compelling. Product is not the only thing that matters, but it is awfully important, and Google is the best placed to deliver the best product. Its services are superior, its knowledge of users the most comprehensive, and its overall product chops have improved considerably. Yes, its go-to-market is worse than Amazon’s and it has a late start, it is still early.

Apple: The loyalty of Apple’s userbase cannot be overstated, particularly when you remember that the company’s userbase are the most affluent customers of all. This makes it difficult to ever count Apple out, even if their product is late and tied to the worst services.

Facebook: It is hard to envision how Portal won’t be a loser: the company has no natural userbase, has a terrible reputation for privacy, and has no obvious business model or go-to-market strategy.

Does It Matter?

There is one final question that overshadows all-of-this: while the home may be the current battleground in consumer technology, is it actually a distinct product area — a new epoch if you will? When it came to mobile, it didn’t matter who had won in PCs; Microsoft ended up being an also-ran.

The fortunes of Apple, in particular, depend on whether or not this is the case. If it is a truly new paradigm, then it is hard to see Apple succeeding. It has a very nice speaker, but everything else about its product is worse. On the other hand, the HomePod’s close connection to the iPhone and Apple’s overall ecosystem may be its saving grace: perhaps the smartphone is still what matters.

More broadly, it may be the case that we are entering an era where there are new battles, the scale of which are closer to skirmishes than all-out wars a la smartphones. What made the smartphone more important than the PC was the fact they were with you all the time. Sure, we spend a lot of time at home, but we also spend time outside (AR?), entertaining ourselves (TV and VR), or on the go (self-driving cars); the one constant is the smartphone, and we may never see anything the scale of the smartphone wars again.

By Ben Thompson

Sourced from STRATECHERY

Read More
By
In News

Facebook’s 2-Factor Authentication With A Phone Number Isn’t Only For Security, It’s Used For Ads

No Comments

By

A new paper published by Princeton University researchers has put forth some very disturbing ideas, detailed Gizmodo. One of the main theories is that Facebook tricked their users into thinking that two-factor authorization with a number was for security purposes only.

The paper, titled “Investigating sources of PII used in Facebook’s targeted advertising,” aimed at discovering why the ads on the platform are so accurately targeted. It turns out that Facebook compiled what people are calling a “shadow profile” for each person, which includes personal information that is gathered through some less-than-straightforward ways.

One of the ways is described as follows.

“[Researchers] found that when a user gives Facebook a phone number for two-factor authentication or in order to receive alerts about new log-ins to a user’s account, that phone number became targetable by an advertiser within a couple of weeks.”

Also, Facebook gathered information for shadow profiles whenever someone uploaded their contact information with the platform. People sometimes do this in order to find more friends on Facebook.

Even the researchers were surprised to find out that Facebook ads used information “that was not directly provided by the user, or even revealed to the user.” And most of all, the report indicates that users were convinced to share private information about their contacts without fully understanding the implications.

Facebook responded to the study’s findings, not disputing it but releasing this statement instead.

“We outline the information we receive and use for ads in our data policy, and give people control over their ads experience including custom audiences, via their ad preferences. For more information about how to manage your preferences and the type of data we use to show people ads see this post.”

 

The reason why your personal information, like your phone number, is so very valuable to advertisers is because it lets them conduct high-level targeted advertising. That means that they’re able to get their ad in front of the people who are most likely to buy their product, thus boosting their sales.

At the same time, Facebook benefits by providing this level of advertising, which can prove more successful than other channels. But if Facebook is utilizing information from people’s shadow profiles, and the information was obtained in sneaky ways, it puts the platform on blast.

Facebook’s vice president of ads Rob Goldman even said the following.

“I think that many users don’t fully understand how ad targeting works today: that advertisers can literally specify exactly which users should see their ads by uploading the users’ email addresses, phone numbers, names+dates of birth, etc.”

If you’re bothered by this, you can check out your “ad preferences” page. There’s a list of “advertisers you’ve interacted with,” which will show you who has your contact information.

By

Sourced from INQUISITR

Read More
By
In News

Not Creating A.I. May Be a Bigger Threat to Humanity, Says Facebook Expert

No Comments
By Mike Brown

Artificial intelligence could outsmart and enslave humanity, but our species’ future could turn out even worse if we don’t advance in the field. That’s according to Tomas Mikolov, a research scientist at Facebook A.I. Research, who believes that catastrophic events could have a detrimental effect on society, and it may be machines that save humans from themselves.

“There are these arguments that maybe we should not develop A.I. because it’s going to destroy us,” Mikolov said at the Human-Level Artificial Intelligence conference organized by GoodAI in Prague, Czech Republic on Saturday, describing this scenario as resulting from science fiction drama. “What if actually not achieving A.I. is the biggest existential threat for humans? As the technology is getting increasingly complex, we are producing more artificial substances that could get into the environment. We as humans are actually very bad at making predictions. What will happen in some distant time, 20, 30 years from now if we make some bad decisions? Maybe actually it will be A.I. that will help us to become much smarter.”

Researchers across the industry are grappling with the issue of super-smart A.I. taking control. Elon Musk has called for stronger government regulation, Stephen Hawking warned it could destroy humanity, and roboticist Noel Sharkey is just one of many experts warning about autonomous weapons. A Future of Life Institute survey last year found 15 percent of researchers think A.I. will be either bad or extremely bad for the species.

Mikolov’s comments touch on a more positive aspect of this new technology, though. A.I. is helping save coral reefs, discover new medical drugs, and research new cancer treatments. Norway has used smarter machines to integrate more renewable energy into the grid, while Indian farmers have boosted crop yields by 30 percent in some cases. With NASA declaring last year the second-hottest on record, such advancements could help avoid a major calamity.

Mikolov did agree with Musk on one thing, though. He claimed that developing a symbiotic relationship between man and machine could avoid computers taking over, echoing Musk’s efforts with his firm Neuralink.

Editor’s Note: The Human-Level Artificial Intelligence conference funded Inverse’s travel and accommodation to cover the event, but the organization has no input over Inverse’s editorial coverage.

Photos via Flickr.com/Insomnia Cured Here

By Mike Brown

Sourced from Inverse

Read More
By
In News

Facebook Takes First Step Toward Owning The Entire Influencer Marketing Space

No Comments
By Greg Shepard

Facebook recently launched Brand Collabs Manager, a platform designed to connect influencers with brands. The platform will collect influencer information such as influencer age, gender, location, language, type of posts, topical interest area, content focus and other metrics, as well as links to existing branded content and an insights section which will detail the influencer’s reach and interaction with followers. It will all be presented neatly in an online media kit of sorts.

Brands will be able to input their desired campaign and promotional requirements and then conduct a search using a collection of criteria and filters to arrive at a list of influencers who best meet the needs of the brand and the campaign. Search results pages will display a list of influencers based upon the search criteria, a percentage match to the influencer’s followers and a link to the aforementioned media kit which contains everything the brand needs to know about the influencer.

At this point, there is no charge to either the advertiser or the influencer to use the service, though Facebook will certainly benefit from any resulting partnerships that include paid ad campaign activity on Facebook. There are many players in the influencer marketing space. With influencer marketing set to become a $5-10 billion market segment (according to MediaKix), each and every player will, no doubt, do their best to garner the most from this growth.

With that in mind, it should come as no surprise that there is, quite likely, far more to the launch of Facebook’s Brand Collabs Manager than its current iteration as influencer/brand matchmaking tool.

In a way, social media platforms are somewhat held hostage by their own influencers, users and brands. Most platforms have no control over — and no way to monetize — the organic activity which occurs on their platforms either within posts or buried in comments. Sure, there are guidelines in place that require disclosure but those guidelines only capture a fraction of actual activity.

If Facebook — and every other social media platform — had its druthers, every last post, comment, like, favorite, etc. would be monetized. Since this isn’t and won’t be the case anytime soon, other approaches to monetization must be considered.

It’s clear Facebook would like to capture and monetize as much of this organic activity and the ongoing side deals which occur between brands and influencers as it can in the same way Google wanted in on all the side deal action that was occurring in search. For all intents and purposes, Google has its has its hand in most every element of search. The launch of the Brand Collabs Manager tool just might be Facebook’s first foray into sewing up ownership of the influencer space.

Right now, the tool only pairs brands and influencers within the Facebook platform. Instagram, which Facebook owns, could easily be added into the mix. And while Facebook doesn’t own Twitter, Snapchat and other platforms, there’s no reason the tool — either through acquisition of other, already existing tools or through other methods — couldn’t aggregate all influencer data and offer up a full-fledged tool which would serve the entire influencer space; sort of the way Google now serves pretty much the entire search space.

Yes, there are other, smaller players which provide portions of this solution, but Facebook being Facebook, it’s easy to see this as a first step toward further capitalizing on every possible element of brand/influencer interaction in the space.

While Facebook acknowledges it’ll never be able to directly monetize every last social media interaction, it can certainly indirectly capitalize on a large percentage of brand and influencer activity by becoming the single major platform that connects brands with influencers across multiple platforms.

Would advertisers pay for a tool that easily connected their brand with every possible influencer, no matter their preferred platform? Would content creators pay for preferential placement within the tool thereby increasing their chances of being matched with a brand? Do advertisers and content creators pay Google to increase their chances of connecting with consumers? Yes. Yes, they do. It should be no surprise then that Facebook likely envisions themselves as the Google of influencer marketing.

Feature Image Credit: Shutterstock

By Greg Shepard

Serial AdTech and Martech entrepreneur, writer and speaker. CSO/CTO of Pepperjam, an AdTech performance marketing company.

Sourced from Forbes

Read More
By
In News

Facebook Ad Guidelines Cheat Sheet

No Comments

By Marc Schenker 

Facebook ads are one of the most cost-effective ways to get attention on your brand these days. Not only are they affordable, but the potential reach is huge.

Unfortunately, though, not many small businesses are getting the most from their Facebook ads! A survey released by website builder Weebly indicated that 62% of small business owners feel their paid ads on Facebook are missing their target. That’s not a very comforting statistic when you consider how many small businesses currently use and advertise on the platform.

The potential is there, however, for small business owners to harness the power of these ads to reach billions of people across the world – and, more importantly, the specific segments of people who would be most likely to become your next customer. While it can be challenging, at first, to get the hang of things, once you do it’s more than worth it.

This cheat sheet is meant to help you get the most from Facebook ads in an easy-to-understand format. It will cover basic Facebook advertising guidelines including:

  • Facebook ad types
  • Facebook ad costs
  • Facebook ad targeting
  • Facebook ad copy and creative
  • Staying competitive on Facebook
  • Analyzing your Facebook ad results

Types of Facebook Ads

It’s vital to have an understanding of what you’re working with when getting started with Facebook ads. To that end, let’s start with the different ad types available to you.

According to Facebook, there are 11 basic kinds of ads available on the platform. These include:

  • Video – Video ads that feature sound and motion (more on Facebook video ads here)
  • Image – High-quality but simple visual ads (more here)
  • Collection – Ads that showcase products from your store’s catalog
  • Carousel – Display up to 10 videos or images in the same ad, each with its very own link (more on Carousel ads here)
  • Slideshow – Ads that use sound, copy and motion to tell brand stories
  • Canvas – Mobile-optimized and full-screen experiences for your customers, directly from ads (more on Canvas ads here)

  • Lead Generation – Carousel, image or video ads that present your leads with a form, after they engage with your ads (more on Lead Ads here)
  • Offers – Ads offering discounts
  • Post Engagement – Ads meant to boost page posts to obtain more engagement
  • Event Responses – Video or image ads designed to drive awareness and responses for events
  • Page Likes – Ads intended to drive page likes and engagement

Which ad type you choose will, naturally, depend on your business type and what your marketing goals are, so be sure to establish your goals first.

Facebook Ad Costs

Facebook is outrageously popular for businesses, even in the wake of bad press about how it handles your data. Much like the auction for Google ads, there’s a bidding process to determine where your Facebook ad appears and how much you pay per click. You’ll indicate how much you want to hand over for precise actions on any given ad, such as views, conversions, clicks, etc. You can manually adjust it or have Facebook automatically make calculations for you, based on your specifications.

Various factors can affect your Facebook ad costs, including the following:

  • When your ad campaigns run (time, date, during peak hours when competition is fiercest)
  • Your specific audience
  • Your Relevance Score
  • Ad placement
  • Your bidding method (set a bid limit on every unique bid or just set your average bid)

As you can probably guess, ad costs therefore can vary quite a bit.

Still, if we look at the averages, we can see some interesting information.

WordStream analyzed hundreds of client accounts to calculate the average cost per click (CPC) and cost per action (CPA) on Facebook for eighteen different industries. They found that the average across all business types was $1.72 per click and $18.68 per conversion.

These are averages, so yours, based on your unique campaigns, could well be different.

What if you’re outside the US? AdEspresso performed a study where it looked at 2017 data to gauge average ad costs in the U.S. and other areas. Here are the findings, in US dollars:

  • CPC average for all countries – $0.97
  • CPC average targeting those 65 and up – more than (Q1) $0.70
  • CPC average targeting those between 13 and 17 (Q1) = $0.11
  • CPC average of Instagram ad placement (Q4) – $1.15
  • CPC average of Facebook ad placement (Q4) – $0.50
  • CPC monthly average – $0.40
  • CPC average on Sundays – $0.40
  • CPC average on Tuesdays and Thursdays – $0.50
  • CPC average of targeting women (Q4) – $0.64
  • CPC average of targeting men (Q4) – $0.50
  • CPC average of optimizing for link clicks (Q4) – $0.44
  • CPC average of optimizing for impressions (Q4) – $3.79
  • CPL (cost per like) average for page like campaigns – $1.08
  • CPL average targeting those 55 and up (Q4) – $0.33
  • CPL average targeting those between 13 and 17 (Q4) – $0.04
  • CPL average per month – $0.12
  • CPL average per week (Q4) – $0.14
  • CPL average cost for women – $0.16
  • CPL average cost for men – $0.11

Looking at ad costs on the platform helps you get a sense of how much of your budget Facebook marketing will eat up. There are, of course, always ways to adjust your targeting and other strategies to lower your Facebook ad costs.

Facebook Ad Targeting

Now it’s time to delve into ad targeting. Here’s where you identify your audience and ensure that the ad content you serve up to them actually appeals to them.

How well you’re able to identify your audience will have a meaningful impact on how much you spend on ads, your ROI, and their overall effectiveness. It pays to spend extra time to accurately define whom you’re targeting.

Facebook lets you go pretty deeply into the traits that define your audience. The extensive targeting options include (but are by no means limited to):

  • Gender
  • Age
  • Location
  • Language
  • Interests
  • Behaviors
  • Life events (such as “recently married”)
  • Education
  • Job title
  • Income
  • Political affiliation

These demographic qualities help you narrow down who will see your ads.

For example, if you’re trying to market to teens on the west coast who speak different languages and are interested in entertainment products, your ad-targeting breakdown might look something like this:

  • Male/female
  • 13 to 19
  • Washington/Oregon/California
  • English/Spanish
  • Entertainment > Live events > concerts

Naturally, narrowing down your audience to those more likely to be in market for your offerings gives you better results than just showing your ads to anyone.

Facebook Ad Copy & Creative

Facebook advertising is just like any form of advertising: the quality of your ad copy and creative goes a long way toward determining your ROI.

One of the most important skills you can master in advertising is the art of persuasion. Famous psychologist Robert Cialdini’s 1984 book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, laid out six unique principles to help marketers convince and convert with greater success. They are:

  • Reciprocation
  • Social proof
  • Commitment and consistency
  • Scarcity
  • Authority
  • Liking

It’s a good idea to infuse your Facebook ads with some of these timeless persuasion principles. For that, you have to consider how you can grab your audience’s attention and persuade them to click using various elements of your ads, such as:

How can you use the principles of persuasion in your Facebook ads? For example, reciprocation can be as straightforward as telling people they can get a free report or ebook if they complete your lead form, while social proof can be something as simple as the number of reactions, shares and comments your ad racks up over the course of its run. More creative, engaging ads tend to get more likes and shares.

Here are some more tips on writing great Facebook ads.

Outdoing the Competition on Facebook

It’s always fair game to see what your competitors are doing—and try to best them. After all, if you can deliver better content to your customers, then you attract their attention and more.

Your competition’s Facebook ads are a goldmine of inspiration for what you can do better in your ads. Simply analyze what their ads are doing right and where there’s room for improvement. Then, implement that in your own ads, especially if you’re competing for the same audience.

Case in point: Skillshare and Udemy are both online learning platforms where courses and how-to videos are available.

Whereas Udemy has an ad touting lifetime access to one course with a 100% money-back guarantee, Skillshare touts unlimited access to all of its courses, all for the price of just $0.99 for two months.

Checking out your competitors’ ads might give you ideas for new value props, CTA’s, or emotional angles to test in your own Facebook ads.

Learn more strategies for competitive advertising on Facebook here.

Facebook Ad Reporting

After you’ve gone through all this trouble to familiarize yourself with how Facebook ads work and hopefully implemented some campaigns, you can’t just expect them to do all the work for you while you sit back. You have to take an active role in your campaigns even when they’re underway, so that you can ensure that you’re getting a good ROI from your ad spend and efforts.

Start monitoring results as soon as you’ve launched one of your ad campaigns. Don’t wait until the campaign has run its course to determine if it was hitting all the right targets or not.

Just head to your Facebook Ads Manager to look at your ads’ performance in real-time. The beauty of monitoring in real-time is you can also respond in real-time by adjusting underperforming ads. Within the Ads Manager, you can easily edit your ads to tweak them to reach better performance.

For example:

  • If an ad’s engagement level is disappointing, try improving the copy or the visuals used in the ad to make it more stimulating and persuasive
  • If an ad’s reach is lower than you expected, try to expand the audience in your targeting parameters
  • If an ad’s conversions aren’t where you want them to be, try improving your call to action by using a more action-oriented verb, or working to improve your Facebook ad landing pages

A final note on tracking Facebook performance: Instead of putting an emphasis on vanity metrics like engagement and the like, you should be focused on tracking the metrics that really matter: sales and ROI or return on ad spend (ROAS). If your ad campaign gets you a lot of reach, clicks and conversions, but you’re actually losing money per sale when you figure in all your expenses, then the campaign’s no good.

That’s why you need to track ad performance and sales first and foremost during the course of your campaigns.

You Can Make Facebook Ads Work for You

Facebook ads have a proven track record of success for small businesses. The fact that they’re cost-effective makes them business-friendly and is just another reason to use these ads. However, not many business owners are using these ads to their full potential—not even close!If you decide to jump headfirst into Facebook ads, you have to have a solid grasp of how the entire platform works, how much you’ll likely spend, the different ad types, optimization strategies, and the need to monitor your ads closely.

Only then will your business get the most from this great platform.

By Marc Schenker 

Sourced from Business 2 Community

Read More
By
In News

4 Ways Social Media Can Boost Your Lead Generation

No Comments

By Lora Kellogg

As any franchise leader knows, developing and expanding your brand isn’t easy. Traditional methods of franchise development, such as working with franchise brokers and using public relations, can be successful. But they’re much more effective when paired with newer methods, such as digital marketing.

Social media platforms provide great lead generation options for advertising. Consumers already feel comfortable engaging on social platforms, and platforms such as Facebook have lead generation-specific ads that provide outstanding targeting options. Users can submit their information on Facebook or Instagram without having to leave the app or website, which makes the process easier for mobile users and delivers more leads to your franchise development team’s inbox.

Brands with an active social media presence already understand the benefits of social platforms. Users interacting with brands on social media aren’t looking only for promotions and discounts; they also are looking for business opportunities.

Brands hoping to interact with potential franchisees should take note. Leads generated through social media are highly motivated. Here are four ways your franchise can increase leads generated from social media platforms.

1. Increase overall brand awareness

Want more consumer interaction on social media? Start by telling your brand story. Tell customers what your company stands for and what it has to offer through articles, videos, and other posts on social media. Seize this opportunity to introduce your brand to potential franchisees on platforms where they’re already comfortable engaging.

Approximately 68 percent of American adults use Facebook — which towers above adult user statistics for other platforms. YouTube takes second place, with 40 percent of adults using it regularly. Talk to your franchisee candidates on the platform or platforms of their choice.

2. Develop lookalike audiences on Facebook

Facebook engagement reigns supreme among adults on social media platforms, so take advantage. Develop new leads by uploading an existing email leads list and using Facebook to create a target “lookalike” audience based on common characteristics shared by members of your email list.

Similarly, you can develop an audience by examining which people have visited your franchise development website. These potential franchisees have shown a clear interest in your brand and already are being served your remarketing ads. Create a lookalike audience based on these users to find similar leads to add to your remarketing list.

3. Create personas among your target demographic

Even among your target demographic, there are a lot of variations. Millennials, for example, share similarities, but they can be subgrouped into young married people with kids, young married people without kids, single college graduates in their first jobs, and other categories. Develop personas within your preferred demographic to more clearly define your target audiences.

Take inventory of the traits you look for in new franchisees to divide your target demographic into desirable categories, then take advantage of hypertargeted social media ads to talk to each persona differently. Recent college graduates are looking for something different from young married people with children. Provide messaging that forges authentic connections with each persona in your audience.

4. Take advantage of Facebook’s new lead-gen ads

Using Facebook’s hypertargeted lead ads can point your qualified audience members to a landing page. This page should offer relevant gated content in exchange for an email address. The content could include an e-book, webinar, or promotional offer.

Once you have collected this email list of qualified leads, target them with remarketing ads. This list also can be used in an email drip campaign. Despite all of Facebook’s offerings, don’t forget to follow up in real life. Digital platforms can’t replace the personal touch, after all.

Growing a franchise is a challenge every franchisor must meet. But in this digital-first world, social media provides a strong tool for lead generation. Follow these four simple tips to ensure your team is getting the most out of its social endeavors.

By Lora Kellogg

Lora Kellogg is president and CEO of Curious Jane, an ad agency specializing in franchises. With nearly 15 years of experience and a portfolio of top brands, she and her team work with established and emerging franchises to grow sales, increase traffic, build brand awareness, and generate leads.

Sourced from Franchising.com

Read More
By
In News

Regulation will only make Facebook stronger, analyst says

No Comments

By Myles Udland

 

Recently, British regulators fined Facebook (FB) 500,000 pounds (about $660,000) for breaking data protection laws that led to the Cambridge Analytica scandal in March.

The fine totals about 7 minutes worth of the Facebook’s revenue.

The fine was so small because the company violated a 1998 data protection law that capped penalties at 500,000 pounds. Under the newly-passed General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regulations that took effect in Europe in May, however, the company’s maximum penalty would’ve been up to 4% of annual global revenue, or around 1.4 billion pounds. Not nothing, but still not the kind of financial penalty that would cause much more than a quarter of analysts “looking through” a one-time charge that impacts GAAP profitability.

And, as regulators increasingly look to take on big tech companies like Facebook and Google, more regulation will entrench these companies’ dominant positions in the online advertising industry. Which means that rules aimed at reining in tech giants will merely ensure their dominance in markets lawmakers already think the companies have too much control over.

Facebook’s revenue in the first quarter of 2018 was just under $12 billion, a nearly 50% increase over the same quarter last year. This week, British regulators fined the company the equivalent of seven minutes worth of revenue. (Source: Facebook)

“As history has shown, we believe that regulation will embolden the incumbents and increase their market share at the expense of smaller tech firms,” said Mark Kelley, an analyst at Nomura Instinet in a note to clients on Tuesday.

“We draw comparisons to the financial services sector post Dodd-Frank, where there has been a clear decline in new banks formed as regulation created higher barriers to entry, likely the result of the outsized impact of compliance costs on smaller banks versus that of larger institutions.”

Kelley cites data from the Minneapolis Fed that shows reported compliance costs at banks with less than $100 million in assets pose a burden that is four times that faced by banks with between $1 and $10 billion in assets.

“This disparity in the financial burden of compliance would likely be replicated in the tech sector, punishing smaller firms and reducing competition to the benefit of the incumbents,” Kelley writes.

“With this as a backdrop, we believe the big players such as Facebook and Google are best positioned to handle the heightened operating costs from regulation and will also benefit from increased barriers to entry.”

The fine levied against Facebook this week — which could be potentially fatal to a tech startup that runs afoul of regulations — illustrates the extent to which tech’s biggest players can swat away regulatory action.

Kelley and his team also think that worries over GDPR regulations neutering the ability for websites to track users’ activity online are overblown.

“Anyone on the internet can go to an EU website to see what the new cookie disclaimers and privacy policy notices look like now that GDPR is in effect,” Kelley said.

“In our opinion, to an unsuspecting consumer (which is likely the majority of consumers), clicking ‘okay’ to the new cookie use policy — which grants the site permission to collect data to be used for tracking purposes — doesn’t look much different than what it looked like in a pre-GDPR environment, if at all.”

Kelley’s note marked the firm’s initiation of coverage on the U.S. internet sector, with the firm putting Buy ratings on shares of both Facebook and Google’s parent company Alphabet (GOOGL).

“Overall, we think there is still some room for growth in digital advertising for the foreseeable future — led primarily by digital video and social (and TV budgets making the transition to digital), and primarily on mobile devices,” Kelley writes.

“As a result of slowing user growth and already high internet penetration, the growth will likely be led by pricing, rather than volume, and the consistent shift away from offline to online media.”

And to the benefit of Facebook and Google.

By Myles Udland

Myles Udland is a writer at Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Twitter @MylesUdland

Sourced from Yahoo Finance

Read More
By
In News

How to Use Facebook Groups for Business Growth

No Comments

By Baishali Mukherjee

It is now a reality to use groups for positioning yourself, acquiring new customers, and many things more

Today, most of us are part of one Facebook group or another. But have we considered using the groups for business growth? Probably not! But it’s high time we start doing it effectively. Leveraging a Facebook group for business can yield delightful results. But before you create a group and start inviting others; it is important to know certain things, so that the group and its activities, create desired impact.

Wondering how to promote your brand in Facebook groups? You can do it either by creating your own Facebook group or by joining one managed by others. It is now a reality to use groups for positioning yourself, acquiring new customers, and many things more.

Scroll down to know more from experts about how to use Facebook groups to support and market your business.

According to Skannd Tyagi, founder, E Info Solutions, Facebook groups are a pool of people with common interest areas. “By joining such a group you have access to people who match the profiles of your target audience. These groups will provide numerous opportunities to create awareness about you and your brand simply by being proactive and helpful. To explore such opportunities, just write the keyword in the search section at the right-hand menu of the group’s page, and get going,” he shared.

Pramod K Maloo, founder Kreative Machinez, a digital hub for business promotional and marketing, believes, there are multiple benefits for entrepreneurs who are part of Facebook groups. He enumerated six of them-

Discussion – Facebook groups are sort of like the new kind of online forum. They have great features like polls, and large-format status updates to encourage group members to interact with your content. You will get regular updates on what is going on in the page, other social media handles.

Polls – Polls can be used to get customer insights and to understand what the customer wants and to receive immediate feedback from polls. Groups are a great source of immediate feedback, and if you build a niche group from the beginning, the feedback you receive will be extremely valuable.

Selected People, group – People who have been in constant interaction with a business page are definitely the ones who are interested in the services they provide. Therefore, making a group of those selected people and giving them the required content and information for what they usually look at. Drive these people to get engaged with the call to action, via campaigns, contests, takeaways etc.

The credibility of the brand – Having groups can help increase the credibility of the brand. The discussions that happen in the groups can also be used as answers or questions in Quora. By doing this we will increase engagement and presence on other social media handles.

Reach – It’s a viable way of building a highly engaged community of individuals who are likely to be interested in your business. You can reach out to masses without spending on Facebook ads.

Economical– If you can reach out to the masses plus targeted masses without pinching your pocket, it`s a great deal. So remember to always provide value to the customers and give them reasons to stay in the group.

Maloo also advised against talking about one’s business and products every time. “Sometimes small talks are important to make your products worthy. If you keep on talking about your products, things will be monotonous and people will lose interest. Also add company employees in the group, to increase the number of positive reviews about the services/ product offered,” he advocated.

Potential to Attract Future Customers Absolutely Free

Ajay Mittal, Founder, Kolkata Clean Air and Mera Workshops, has over the last few months, spent time talking to individual business owners to understand about how they generate business. Interestingly, one of the top platforms for them was Facebook and Whatsapp groups which were helping them attract more customers. He found that these groups can really help grow all business, be it, small or large, B2C or B2B.

The point Mittal wants to make is the sheer potential of Facebook group in attracting thousands of members, many of whom could be your customers, absolutely free. “If you compare this with any other marketing techniques, and the cost of reaching out to 10k eyes balls which are mostly targeted as potential audience having one or more common factors, and you will understand the immensity of the potential. That is not all, Facebook group posts allow easy communications and response which results in much higher engagements,” he opined.

Another interesting thing is that the posts stay in the groups forever so many people who view these posts can always search back when they are in need of the requirement, even months after the post was made.

Starting a Facebook group could be a great strategy if you are ready to do some hard work in building a successful group as Facebook Group Admin has much higher visibility and privileges than any other members. Mittal maintained that if you are into a business that has potential to take a community along you, should start building a group today.

Engaging successfully in a Facebook group

To engage successfully in a Facebook group you must make interesting posts. Now, what is engaging to a Facebook group might be very subjective and it depends on the target audience. It also matters what is the time you have made that posts.

There is no real secret to what makes a post successful, but a few things that you can consider as tips from Mittal’s observation:

1) Keep it short, easy to understand and very clearly highlighting the value proposition.

2) Most responsive posts are that are linked to a current event for e.g. Posts on beautiful hampers on Valentine’s Day or Mother’s Day will attract more response around those days.

3) Ensure you have a completely updated and active Facebook profile as that is important for people to trust you before enquiring or buying from you. Most people after reading a post will visit your profile before connecting with you to buy.

4) Make sure you engage in other posts but somehow connecting your comment with the post and not randomly posting your comment on every post. Best is to read through comments and reply to people who you see as your target audience.

Isn’t it a great opportunity for business owners to grow their business using these free techniques? All one needs is to be consistent and explore more and more groups to discover platforms that help to generate business, find ways to engage with target audience. What is even more interesting is that it is not limited to just B2C business; in fact B2B businesses have much higher potential but with a totally different strategy of selling directly but through education based marketing and engaging communities by sharing tons of value to appear as an expert in your domain.

Feature Image Credit: graphicstock

By Baishali Mukherjee

Sourced from Entrepreneur

Read More
By
Load More