FB might ban sponsored updates but will still use user pics in ads
Techcrunch reports that Facebook is proposing a ban on sponsored updates by users and any other monetisation activities of profiles on the site. However, FB, or rather advertisers using FB, can still utilise user data and photos for their own ads. Even adjusting privacy settings on FB only prevents Facebook itself from using user photos in “social” adverts. Third party apps and other parts of the site can still, in theory, access user photos and information for advertising purposes whether the user approves of it or not.
But are sponsored adverts that bad? In some respects, yes. As the Techcrunch article points out the ability to talk about products or brands within a social space could be geneuinely useful but its also open to abuse in the form of unwanted spam. However, since FB is happy to give up user data to its advertisers and commercialise the site in as many ways as possible it’s doubtful whether the motives behind this recent proposal are to do with protecting the sanctity of the space. Perhaps it’s better to focus on the fact that the new proposal forbids users from “using their personal profiles for their own commercial gain”. This contrasts strongly with other social media platforms: from Twitter to Youtube to Google’s Blogger users are allowed to monetise their sites and pages in a limited way. So FB seems to be locking down every possible advertising pathway on the site and making sure that users can’t deprive the company, or third-party developers, of any potential advertising revenue.
If that is the thinking behind this new proposal then it implies that FB sees its users as a potential threat to its financial well-being. An odd attitude for a company that’s built its fortune on the back of user generated content, but an understandable one considering FB’s over-valuation and ongoing issues with finding an effective business model.
(First posted, August 11 2009 on viralmojo.net)
But are sponsored adverts that bad? In some respects, yes. As the Techcrunch article points out the ability to talk about products or brands within a social space could be geneuinely useful but its also open to abuse in the form of unwanted spam. However, since FB is happy to give up user data to its advertisers and commercialise the site in as many ways as possible it’s doubtful whether the motives behind this recent proposal are to do with protecting the sanctity of the space. Perhaps it’s better to focus on the fact that the new proposal forbids users from “using their personal profiles for their own commercial gain”. This contrasts strongly with other social media platforms: from Twitter to Youtube to Google’s Blogger users are allowed to monetise their sites and pages in a limited way. So FB seems to be locking down every possible advertising pathway on the site and making sure that users can’t deprive the company, or third-party developers, of any potential advertising revenue.
If that is the thinking behind this new proposal then it implies that FB sees its users as a potential threat to its financial well-being. An odd attitude for a company that’s built its fortune on the back of user generated content, but an understandable one considering FB’s over-valuation and ongoing issues with finding an effective business model.
(First posted, August 11 2009 on viralmojo.net)
Comments
Post a Comment