Last week Jaron Schneider posted an inside look at the decline in Facebook engagement. For those of us with Photography pages to promote, this means that now you will have to pay each time you want your posts to reach an acceptable amount of your followers. Youtuber Veritasium created an informative video that explains the situation in even more detail.
For now, Facebook is winning this battle and Fstoppers is paying to promote important content but business owners are getting fed up. If Facebook continues, it may become the next MySpace quicker than we had expected.
Great video, and great points. I think the the only thing keeping businesses with Facebook is that the users are still with Facebook. There is no viable alternative that will get used by the public to the degree that Facebook is used (Not yet anyways). The large majority of FB users do not know that their stuff is filtered, and they don't want to pay to promote their stuff, so all of this just goes on over their heads.
And the "large majority of FB users" don't want a constant stream of ads and sales pitches shoved at them either.
Facebook sucks, im going back to #Friendster #badjokes
Does something like Google+ stand a chance on unseating Facebook in 2014?
Only if they change the name completely to something cool
Like what, G Life? Sounds like a social network for thugs.
Did I suggest G Life?
No. Because there is no real userbase, and real people have zero motivation to move to a new service that is the same as fb but with 0% of their friends present.
It's just nerds talking to each other about Google Plus and how it isn't Facebook, or the Kelby-Ratcliffe 'photographer' circlejerk.
Maybe Google+ should provide a method to import all of your facebook posts and images etc. and people can move their entire facebook "life" with one click to Google+. Now that would be something that will probably break facebook. ;)
facebook doesn't allow you to take your data. So even if Google would have this possibility you could not use it. Data you put in Goolge+ can be removed though and downloaded to your own computer.
You will be surprised how much is already happening. I have 40.000 followers on G+ and this type of interaction like in this post is quite normal for me. And this is possible without advertising.
The cycle of ineptitude continues... You'd think Facebook would have learned from the Digg Reddit migration of 2010, especially considering their own MySpace migration.
The video side steps the elephant in the room. Which is the businesses that use facebook as a vehicle to promote their business, should expect to pay for that service due to facebook's userbase.
The video fails to separate the 2 distinct user bases of facebook, those who run businesses and those for personal use. Personal users don't have to worry about filters because they will actively seek out what their friends and families are doing and vice versa. Thus facebook filtering content and organic reach mainly only affects businesses, who can't actively seek out all their viewers, and are instead their viewers actively seek them out. Completely different models for completely different purposes, the fact that it's done on the same platform shouldn't be held against facebook.
You'd think they already make enough money from every detail of our lives?...wait that's what they're selling.
So does Google, Bing, Walgreen's pharmacies, and any store with a 'rewards' card. And your point is?
The whiners here want to profit from facebook users at no cost, yet they are complaining that facebook wants to profit as well. That is a huge disconnect from (business and advertising) reality.
So in a since facebook is actually hurting it self due to the fact they filter everyhing out ad wise from people that dont engage with those/us companies beacuse all they want to do is engage with their families/friends which they dont mind. Thus making it harder for us to get to our potential client base for us to get paid and pay for ads because our revenue drops and we cant pay for the ads? Also I bet when they're/Clients are looking for wedding photographers,etc. their googleing/binging not serching on facebook yes they have friends that post their wedding pics and they might find out about us through them, thats why SEO and websites are important. MySpace was replaced by Facebook, Myspace is music oriented and has its niche google+ is nice for photographer discusion and share photos amongest one another somthing will come along and knock out Facebook or their niche will be family orianted content oh wiat thats what it always has been but they wont beable to profit. Again I say have a web site SEO is they best way to go
Your post is a grammatical mess.
This guy is right on. He and I should, like, hang out or something and talk about how we're being shafted by a company who isn't sure what they are anymore.
Being shafted? How? For a company (Facebook) to ask you to pay for (your formerly free) advertising? Reality check Jaron.................nothing is free.
Please don't say "shafted". How would we feel if we charged our clients a minimal fee for our services and they told the world they got "shafted"? We're being hypocritical on this matter
You mistake my dislike of their policies for a dislike for paying for services. I happily pay for services. We pay Facebook right now. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is what we are getting for those services. I complain about Comcast, Verizon and other companies the same way. Also, their fee is nothing close to "minimal."
Again, I'd argue that dollar for dollar, what other method of advertising has such an immediate impact with all the other bells and whistles we get with the ole bookface? I'm also guilty of complaining about paying for services I can't really see a return in, however, FB isn't even close to one of them (I'm also not currently paying FB for anything). I think I'm just over reading about the topic - nothing personal.
You expected more from a social media network that was literally created by college kids sitting around a dorm room drinking? The envisioned a great idea, but they lack what it takes to keep it viable.
Really? Facebook is the 2nd largest website in the world behind the google.com homepage. I'm pretty sure at this stage they can hire anyone to make it viable. I think they have just gone down a wrong path with their current business strategy. I think it's pretty impressive to think a couple of college kids drinking beer could create the 2nd largest website in the world....that's no easy feat
No one can ever question the success of Facebook, but they have certainly taken steps lately that put the website's future in question. Already they have lost the young visitors (high school age) and business people have quickly seen that the business pages are no great success either. I work with high school kids and they all use other forms of social media on a larger scale now then they did two years ago. To the average teenager, FB is nothing more than a place to put your good stuff so parents don't see it. Ford sold a ton of Pintos in the day. But that success didn't last long.
That's because Pintos would catch fire with the smallest rear collisions! come on..
Also, a bunch of college kids also invented THE largest website in the world.
Even this latest move impresses me. Facebook is and will remain a social media site first, with excellent advertising potential for those who have a legitimate enough business to justify paying for advertisement, secondly.
Key word is 'social media' here, not "advertising company". Facebook; for social interaction, not sales pitches.
Imho, part of the problem is the age structure of the average facebook user; last I heard it was well above 25 years.
Those guys don't hit facebook to play farmville, they're mostly busy living real lives.
Not the teens/ college kids fb was aiming for!
I think fb needs to turn this ship around pretty fast in order to keep its remaining users aboard.
The phrase that caught my attention was "...readership may decline..." That sounds like Facebook had to post that notice as part of the SEC double-talk.
Do people really expect Facebook to be a free, perpetual traffic generator for for-profit businesses?
Yes. When it's obvious you're being squeezed for cash on something that used to be free, you're not going to get a good response.
If you don't want to pay, then go away!
So would you shoot my family photos for free? I'm in Arizona.
That Facebook refuses to show posts to the people who've taken the time, (for whatever reason) to like your page, is disingenuous on their part. And that is what has a lot of people panties wadded up. Mine included. It's one thing to ask us to pay to get more views/likes; a completely different thing to make us pay so that people who've already agreed to see our content can now see our content.
Criminal because is like leading people around by a ring in their nose without them knowing it to ultimately put money in the pocket of the man.
Facebook needs to look at why Youtube is structured the way it is and mimic that model.
I think the fundamental difference between Facebook and the other sites
is one of the underlying psychology in how we handle content.
Entertaining content like Youtube will always be more popular than something that is
nothing more than a High School Year book with a Family Photo Album
added on.
Entertainment helps us escape ourselves and daily struggles that people typically have. If you look at the statistics, Facebook often times, causes users to feel resentment, jealousy and frustration who see friends or family with more or better "stuff". The number of people who become depressed on Facebook is probably higher than those people who use Youtube.
Another issue is the "Pay to Play" structure is inherently offensive to most casual users. When you sign up for something that is "free", being asked to pay to unlock intentionally crippled functionality, comes off as a cheap scam. Are people going to pay to have their content unfiltered so that they can have negative emotions provoked? Probably not.
Also, most people do not want advertisers to use their personal content because they are not entertainers at their core. Facebook apparently does not understand the "creative" mind, is different than the "viewer" mind. So the filtering scheme they are currently using is self defeating in many respects.
To correct the problem Facebook has, they would have to develop a way to insert entertainment provided by the creative sector of the membership, without a filter with the advertising, tied to the creative sector and not the "viewer sector". There should be 3 type of accounts depending on which sector you want to represent. Viewer, Celebrity and Creative. While a person can be all 3, most people tend to default to their natural niche.
I hear Myspace is so hip right now!
One word.... Google+
I think the real question for us here, on this site, is how does this affect the reach of our posts on our photography business pages (well, at least that's probably what's important to a lot of us here anyway). Obviously the amount of people who have "liked" our pages and will see our posts has and will continue to go down. But is that a huge deal? Who are the most important people that we want to see the photos we are posting? For our studio, by far the most engaged and most important people are those in the photos we post, and their friends. If some other photographer, or a customer from years ago that liked our page, or some random person in another state that just happened across our page one day, does not see a photo of the most recent wedding we shot, it's not a big deal. If the bride and groom and their friends don't see it, that IS a big deal.
So, what's the best way to guarantee that the key people see a specific post? Tag them. Or, have them tag themselves. Asking a bride and groom to "like" your page is a crap shoot as to whether or not they'd see their photos. Promoting the post may increase the chances somewhat but it's still not guaranteed. But friend and tag them and it's near 100% certain that not only they, but a large number of their friends, will see the photos.
FINALLY! A reasonable and thoughtful reply.
as a photographer who has worked VERY hard to build a strong following and who HAS seen the rewards from social media, i just don't understand how FB can't simply CHARGE business pages an annual fee ... a flat and REASONABLE fee. the pay-per-post is not the way to go ... it is exorbitant and ridiculous, and isn't even guaranteed to reach your OWN followers anyway.
to be able to pay a reasonable annual fee, based perhaps on number of followers, just makes sense. i can't imagine the huge revenue this would put into the pockets of FB ... and provided that this sort of system would then allow for followers to actually receive the feeds of the pages they 'subscribe' to, i would call that a win-win.
So, you'd also want a flat annual fee to use any number of billboards in an area, at any time, for any length of time within that year?
Perhaps you should charge a flat fee for your shoots no matter how many prints they want (including reprints) for a flat annual fee? Let me know how that price model works for ya!
well, if you read my comment, SC, i did say "based perhaps on number of followers" ... so this would then cover one's 'distribution'. how wisely one chooses to market themselves to those followers within that 'distribution' is really up to the business ... that is the beauty of social media, after all. if you flood them, they'll tune you out -- click "un-like" or worse "spam it" ... if you don't use it, then you're losing. it's a delicate balance; it's about knowing how to use it. BUT when you've worked hard to build an audience of genuine followers and then can't reach those the followers, THAT becomes an issue, and THAT is something i am more than willing to pay for. BUT as a business person, it's simple math to see that the pay-per-post is NOT a wise investment.
i have certainly paid for some marketing here and there with FB to promote certain posts for charity give-aways, etc., and as such, i have seen how the pay-per-posts do NOT work. it did not substantially increase the 'reach' ... and i've heard these same results from other small businesses paying for post promotion.
Is this really that different than doing a few pro bono jobs and specials in order to get visibility and perceived value and then taking action to recover investments and margin?
Not at all. Most people replying here apparently need a diaper change!
I'm with you, Lee. These recent moves have continued Facebook decline. There's a growing market for other platforms to take back some space because of all of this!
What a pitiful crybaby, whining because Facebook expects him to PAY for ADVERTISING!
Of course you should pay to advertise. Try whining to a billboard company that you shouldn't have to pay to use their billboard and see how fast they hang up on you.
news flash for you all; people pay to advertise!
2nd new flash; facebook users don't want your pushy sales pitch, they want to interact with their friends.
You are repeatedly missing the point - jeesh are you a FB fanboy?
newsflash - The advertising doesn't work, so who'd be dumb enough to pay for it?
2nd newsflash - FB is throttling back engagement between friends, not just from Pages, so drastically cutting down on social interaction - their very reason for success.
Exactly.....and even with friends pages where I "like" posts....I don't see them in my feed anymore. Am hating how much fb filters.