Forum menu
>So they influenced about 1 in 3,500 of those who had chance to view the video.
Well 1 in 3,500 may have watched the video, which is not the same as saying they were influenced by it to any measurable effect.
>And there won’t be, because Facebook won’t reveal what external sites were marketed, who they were marketed to, or the content therein.
Completely missing the point. Just because you see one 10 sec advert (or part thereof more likely) doesn't mean it changes your behaviour. I'd be more worried by the constant barge of overtly racist material eg we have pretty much all the red-tops spewing out racial hatred / anti-EU messages 7 days a week for years on end. And to cap it all, the PM responds to it all, thus reinforcing the message as legitimate.
>Oh and $40million dollars spent on Facebook reaches a lot more than it does in print.
Reach figures for adverts on social media are a joke. There's a huge push back from the likes of Martin Sorrel and WPP etc as Google et al count 1 sec of a video playing in the corner of your screen as you scroll past it as a 'full play'. Essentially ripping off the companies paying for advertising. On top of that you have bots watching videos to get the numbers up for the social media platform.
You've misread what I wrote 🙂
I said 1 in 3,500 (actually, I'm a factor of ten out - it should be 1 in 350) of those who had the chance to watch it, i.e. of the 1 million plus impressions/reach or whatever the term is there were around 3000 downloads. The "watch the full video" rate was roughly 1 in 4 of the reach. The "conversion rate" of those who watched it in full was about 1 in 80.
Of course some of those who downloaded the app may have done so because they already knew about it and the video jogged their memory so not "influencing" as such.
As flasheart said, old news....obama's team used this data on his campaign trail and nobody raised an eyebrow...trump's team use it and it's suddenly another stick with which to beat him...the losers from the US election really are bitter, it's this kind of fixation on the mundane that will see Trump get reelected....while CNN and the rest focus on alleged Russia links, data harvesting, the size of Trump's hands and whatever porn stars he has or hasn't slept with...Trump will merrily cruise back into the White House in 2020...monkeys learn faster than the left leaning media.
....in more bleeding obvious news, those voice activated search/shopping devices people are clamouring to install in their homes (Alexa, Echo, Google Home, Apple Homepod etc) all have mics and log your searches, history, commands etc like your phone and laptop do...it's obvious what's coming next but it'll be funny anyway in a couple of years time when people get the hump that the listening device they've voluntarily installed in their home is...listening to everything.
Why you would choose to bug yourself is beyond me but it takes all sorts I suppose, Facebook, Apple and Google have shown themselves to be in cahoots with governments and slap dash with your information...don't just give them an easy time of it.
I attended a course recently whereby it started by all of us taking our places at the table, in front of us was a stack of A4 paper of varying heights...the tutor began by telling us that the information in front of us was our entire internet history...skeptical I dived in to have a look; he was right, stuff I'd long forgotten about was staring right back at me...passwords, websites I visited once about 10yrs ago, regular forums, pics I'd thought were secure in the cloud etc...
...this was all accessed in their offices with just my name as the starting point...nobody had to break into my house, nobody bugged my phone etc...and yet people seem surprised this information exists and is used by governments...weird.
Deviant
As flasheart said, old news….obama’s team used this data on his campaign trail and nobody raised an eyebrow…trump’s team use it and it’s suddenly another stick with which to beat him…the losers from the US election really are bitter, it’s this kind of fixation on the mundane that will see Trump get reelected
That's not a valid comparison though, Obama's Facebook campaign was an app which people downloaded willingly with the intention of prompting other Democrats in their friend list to go out and vote - the privileges they okay'd within the app required deliberate, conscious permission. I agree with the latter half of your paragraph though.
footflaps
>And there won’t be, because Facebook won’t reveal what external sites were marketed, who they were marketed to, or the content therein.
Completely missing the point. Just because you see one 10 sec advert (or part thereof more likely) doesn’t mean it changes your behaviour. I’d be more worried by the constant barge of overtly racist material eg we have pretty much all the red-tops spewing out racial hatred / anti-EU messages 7 days a week for years on end. And to cap it all, the PM responds to it all, thus reinforcing the message as legitimate.
Well obviously we'll just go back and forth telling each other we're missing the point but the racism and racial hatred spread by Trump was individually targeted and directed at people's "hot button" issues.
>Oh and $40million dollars spent on Facebook reaches a lot more than it does in print.
Reach figures for adverts on social media are a joke.
Yeah, everything's a joke apart from newspapers. Newspapers and tv news is the real serious business. Remember how they accurately predicted the US election and Brexit? I'm at a loss as to why you think social media is a piffling matter or that print media is somehow more effective. You can reach thousands of people for $10, so I'll just re-iterate that $40 million on Facebook gets a lot more attention than it does in print, and this is before we get into fake Russian accounts and bot farms.
Everyone making the comparison with the previous Obama campaign use of facebook is either a) totally unaware of the differences and therefore should be ignored or b) trying to mislead you and should be ignored. It's another one of those useful diagnostics, like saying "snowflake" unironically.
>Remember how they accurately predicted the US election and Brexit?
What is the relevance of that wrt the racial hatred etc they spew out daily. Virtually no one corrected predicted the elections, so what? That's not proof by any means that FB/CA somehow influenced them.
The main difference with newspapers (bar the odd free one) is people willingly buy them and I guess read them to some extent. The data on how effective social media ads are is zero. The stats on number of views are fraudulent which is why WPP etc are kicking up such a fuss (as they realise they're being charged for 10-100x as many views as there actually are). So, in my mind, there is a big world of difference between the two. If the Mail leads with a controversial headline, it can very often dictate PMQs the next day, you get no such effect from FB ads.
Here is great fact (only one data point) on social media advertising effectiveness. One of the biggest advertisers cut their ad spend by $140m, over concerns about fake viewing figures, and saw no noticeable dip in sales figures. http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/p-g-slashe/309936/
To be honest, when the post starts with:
deviant - Member
you can just ignore it anyway. He just copies and pastes shite he’s read elsewhere.
Anyway, this tweet went a bit viral today - I read through a bit of it, but didn’t have time to go through it all. Anybody else come across it?
https://twitter.com/dylanmckaynz/status/976368845635035138?s=21
>somehow it has my entire call history with my partner's mum
I'm guessing from WhatsApp call records.
I think you need to read further through the thread. But yeah, it’s just like a canvasser knocking on your door.
But apply that 1 in 3,500 to a parliamentary constituency of around 70,000...
How can you use the conversion rate on a single viral campaign designed to persuade people to install an app, to make an estimate of how many people's voting intentions were influenced by individually targeted political ads?
Different techniques, different conversion outcome, different everything!
I can believe targeted ads have an effect, because people are dangerously influenced by the most incredible nonsense on the internet. I had Canadian relatives emailing to tell me that the UK had "erased the Holocaust from the curriculum to avoid offending Muslims".