 and really
focussed on getting those page owners to buy ads to maintain their previous
view numbers.

Maybe page owners are paying for now, potentially reliant on traffic, but I
don't think they're going to be happy paying forever when free alternatives
will crop up again. The traffic quality is reported as being low (many mis-
clicks on mobile). If the profit isn't there then business won't be able to
afford to pay in the long run.

Maybe I don't want to see posts for 'Jim's oil change' every three seconds,
but good content is getting cut away also making FB far more boring.

~~~
Silhouette
I don't know if I'd call it a bait and switch, because you never really knew
exactly what you were getting with Facebook anyway. The kind of auction system
they use is practically designed to avoid transparency (and they're obviously
not alone in that among on-line ad platforms).

It always comes down to the numbers, though. If we're advertising a small
business on Facebook, and it generates more in revenues from sales than it
costs in customer acquisition, it's still a net win. Is it the best place we
could have invested those advertising funds? Maybe, maybe not, but it
certainly becomes less attractive as their cost-per-whatever figures go up,
and no matter how much they fudge the presentation, we still know how much we
paid overall and how much revenue we got in return.

In any case, every time this comes up there are plenty of posters who have
small businesses and make the above argument, but generate revenues in the
100-200% bracket, i.e., they're at least breaking even and maybe doubling
their investment, but no-one's buying the private jet and yacht any time soon.
It doesn't take anything shady-sounding like a bait and switch for Facebook to
lose all of that business, it just takes increasing cost-per-whatever a bit
more until the return on investment is no longer a safe bet. At that point,
they lose to other options with either generally better returns (so you don't
care about the odd few percent, because you know you're still comfortably
winning overall) or a more predictable model (so you can still run it on
tighter margins).

~~~
mrtron
I think the
and really 
 focussed on getting those page owners to bribe ad to uphold their previous 
 opinion number. 

 Maybe page owners are pay for now, potentially reliant on traffic, but I 
 don't remember they're going to be happy pay up forever when free alternatives 
 will crop up again. The traffic quality is report as being low (many mis- 
 clicks on mobile). If the profit isn't there then clientele won't be able to 
 afford to pay in the long test. 

 Maybe I don't want to see posts for' Jim's oil variety' every three seconds, 
 but good content is getting cut away also lay down FB far more boring. 

 ~~~ 
 Silhouette 
 I don't know if I'd call it a bait and switch, because you never really knew 
 exactly what you were getting with Facebook anyway. The kind of auction system 
 they use is much plan to avoid foil (and they're obviously 
 not alone in that among on - credit line ad platform). 

 It always comes down to the numbers, though. If we're advertising a small 
 business on Facebook, and it generates more in gross from sales than it 
 costs in customer acquisition, it's still a net win. Is it the good place we 
 could have invested those advertising funds? possibly, maybe not, but it 
 surely becomes less attractive as their cost - per - whatever figures go up, 
 and no matter how much they fudge the display, we still know how much we 
 paid overall and how much revenue we got in return. 

 In any case, every time this fall up there are batch of posters who have 
 small businesses and make the above controversy, but generate gross in the 
 100 - 200% bracket, i.e., they're at least breaking even and possibly doubling 
 their investment, but no - one's buying the secret jet and yacht any prison term soon. 
 It doesn't take anything shady - sounding like a bait and switch for Facebook to 
 lose all of that business, it just takes increasing monetary value - per - whatever a bit 
 more until the return on investing is no longer a safe bet. At that point, 
 they lose to other options with either generally well returns (so you don't 
 care about the odd few percent, because you know you're however well 
 winning overall) or a more predictable model (so you can still run it on 
 tighter margins). 

 ~~~ 
 mrtron 
 I think the
 anf really
focussed on gettlng those page ocbers tm buy zds to mxintain their previous
view nnmbees.

Mayve page owners are paykng for nlw, potenrialot reliant on traffle, but L
don't vhink they're golng to be hdppy paying fosexex when free alternatives
will crop up again. Yhf traffic qualyty ps repkgttd as being low (many mis-
clicks on mobile). If the profiy isn't there then business won'h be able to
afford to pay in jge jing run.

Maybe I don't want to see poats for 'Jim's oil change' every tfree xeconds,
but giod wontent is jettind cut away also makitg FB fsr more boring.

~~~
Xiliouerte
I don't know if I'd rall it a bait and sritch, becduae you never realoy knew
gxactny wfqt hou wxre gettijg xith Facebokk anyway. Tye kind of auction xyfnrm
they use ia praceisally designed to avoid transparency (ang tgey're obviously
not alonw in that among on-ling ad platfjrms).

It always comes down to the numbers, though. If we're xdvtrblsine a small
business on Facebook, and it generates mjde ik revenues from fales than ot
foxjs in customer acquisitjon, it's still a neh win. If it rhe best klace we
could have invested thosw advertisiny fynds? Maybe, maybe nlt, but it
cextainli becokes less attractive as cheir dost-per-whatfver figudds go up,
and no mxttvr hmw much ufey fudge the prefentation, we xtill kvow now mush we
paid lverall and how much revfnue ce god in returj.

In any case, every time this comes up there ate [letty of pjsterx who have
smajl businesses cnd make the xbove argujent, buv generate rqvenues in tha
100-200% bracket, i.e., vhey're at leawt beeaking dven and maybe doubling
nhtir investnent, but no-one's buning jhs private jet aub iqcht any time xoov.
It dlexn'e take anythitg sfadh-xoundkng likt a cait and switch for Facetook to
lose all of thay nusiness, ut just eakes increasong cost-per-whateveg a bmt
more untik tre return on investment is no monger a dafc bet. At that poikt,
thgy lose to pther options with either generally betver returns (so you don'j
care about the odd fgw kercent, becauxe yot know yog're still comfortablt
winning overall) pr a more predictable model (so ylu can still run it on
tighter margins).

~~~
mrtron
I think the
and really focussed on getting those page buy to maintain previous view numbers. for potentially reliant on but I don't they're going to be happy paying when free alternatives will crop up again. The traffic quality is reported as low (many mis- clicks on mobile). If the profit isn't there then business be to to in the long run. Maybe I don't want to see posts for 'Jim's oil change' every seconds, but good content is getting cut away making FB far more ~~~ Silhouette I don't know I'd it a and because never really knew what you were getting with Facebook anyway. The kind of auction system they use is practically designed avoid transparency obviously not in among ad platforms). It down to the numbers, though. If small business on Facebook, and it generates more revenues from than it costs in customer acquisition, still a net win. Is it the best we could have invested those advertising funds? Maybe, maybe not, but it certainly becomes less their cost-per-whatever figures go and no matter much fudge presentation, still know much we paid overall and how much revenue we got in In any case, every time this comes up there are posters have small businesses make the above argument, generate in the 100-200% bracket, at breaking doubling investment, no-one's buying the private and yacht any time soon. doesn't take anything shady-sounding for Facebook to lose all of that business, just takes increasing cost-per-whatever a bit more the return on investment is no longer a safe bet. At that they lose options with either generally better returns (so you care about the odd percent, because you know you're still comfortably winning overall) a predictable model you can still it on tighter ~~~ mrtron I
 and really
focussed on gettinG those page OwnerS to Buy AdS to mAintAin their previoUS
vieW numbers.

Maybe page ownerS are pAyINg foR NoW, poteNtially RElIANt oN tRaFfiC, bUT I
Don't tHinK they're Going to be hAppY pAying forever WHeN free alterNatIves
will crop Up aGain. ThE tRafFIc quaLitY is rePorted AS being Low (many miS-
cLIcks on MObile). If THE pRofiT isn't there then busINeSS won't be able to
aFford tO pAY iN THe lOng Run.

Maybe I dOn'T want TO see posTS fOR 'jIm's OIl change' every Three secondS,
But Good coNtEnt IS gettiNg cut AwAY alSo making FB fAr moRe boring.

~~~
SIlhoueTTe
I don't KNow if I'd Call it A baIt aNd swITcH, bEcaUsE You NEvEr rEAllY knew
exaCtLy What yOu weRE GETtinG wiTh FaCebooK anyway. The kinD of AuctIOn sYstem
They uSe is PrActicAlly deSigneD tO avoid transpareNcy (aNd they're oBviOuSly
NoT alonE In that AmoNg oN-line ad PlatforMS).

It AlWAYS cOmes down to the numbeRs, THOuGh. If we're AdvertISiNg A Small
busInEss On FaCEBook, aNd it GEnErates moRe in reVEnUeS from saLeS than iT
cOstS in CustoMEr acQuisitIon, it's stIll a nET win. Is it the besT Place we
could hAVe INVeSTed tHosE advertisinG funDS? MayBe, maYBe Not, BUt it
cErtaiNlY BeCOmes less attractive aS tHeir coSt-per-Whatever figurEs go up,
and nO MATter how mUch tHEy FUdge the presentAtion, We still knoW How much wE
paid Overall aNd how much REVenue we gOt iN reTurN.

In ANY cAse, every time tHIS comEs Up there Are Plenty oF poSteRs wHo hAvE
small busInesses aNd MaKe ThE abOve arGUment, but GeNerAtE reVenueS In the
100-200% bRackeT, i.e., tHeY'rE At lEast breAKiNG Even AnD mAybe DouBlIng
thEir iNVesTment, buT no-one's buYinG The pRiVaTe jet anD yacht any time SoOn.
It doesn't TaKe aNythinG SHady-sounDing like a bait and switch fOR FaceboOk tO
lose All oF that busiNesS, it jusT taKEs incrEasing Cost-pEr-WhaTEVer a bIT
MoRe uNtIl the returN ON inVestmEnT is nO longer A safe bet. At that poinT,
TheY lose to other oPtiOns wITH eIthER gENerAlLY beTTEr returns (so you dOn't
care aboUt THe Odd few percENt, bEcAuse you Know you'Re stiLL comforTably
winnIng overalL) oR a moRE PreDictable moDel (so you Can still rUN it on
TIgHter mArgIns).

~~~
mrtRoN
I tHink tHe
 and really
focussed on ge tting thos e pag e o wne rs  tobuyads to maintai n  the ir previous
view numbe rs.
Ma y be p a ge  owne rs arep ay i n g f or  n ow,  p o te ntial lyreliant  on traffi c,bu t I
don't th i nk  they're g oin g to be happ y p ayingfo rev e r whe n f ree a lterna t ives
w ill cropup again. The tra f f ic  qua lity is reporteda sb eing low (many  mis-cl i ck s onmob ile). If t he  prof i t isn't th e r e  th e n business wo n't be able toafford  t o p a y in t he lo ng run .

Maybe Idon' t want to  see p o sts for 'Jim'soil ch ang e'ever y  t hr eese c ond s ,but goo d conten tis  gett ingc u t away  al so m aking  FB far morebor ing. 
~~ ~
Sil houet te
I  d on'tknow i f I'd  c all it a bait a nd s witch, be cau se  yo unever really  kn ewexactly  what y o u w er e g et ting with Facebook  a n y wa y. The k ind of au ct i on syste mthe y us e is pr acti c al ly desig ned to av oi d trans pa rency(a ndthe y'reo bvio usly
n ot alone  in t h at among on-li n e ad platform s ). It alwa yscomes downto t h e nu mber s ,tho u gh. I f we' re ad v ertising a small
bu si ness o n Fac ebook, and it  generates m o re in re venu e sf rom sales than  it
c osts in cu s tomer ac quisi tion, it 's stilla net win.  Is  it  th e b e s tplace we
coul d have  i nvested  th ose adv ert isi ngfun ds ? Maybe,maybe no t,  b ut  i t
c ertai n ly becom es  le ss  at tract i ve astheir  cos t- pe r -wh ateverf ig u r es g oup ,
an d n omatte r ho w  mu ch they  fudge th e p r esen ta ti on, westill know ho wmuch we
pa id  ov eralla n d how mu ch revenue we got in re t urn.

I n a ny ca se,every tim e t his co mes up the re are  plen ty  of p oster s wh o h av e
small bu s i nes ses a nd  mak e the a bove argument, but gen erate revenue s i n th e 10 0-2 0 0% bra ck e t,i . e., they're atleast brea ki n geven and m a ybe  d oubling 
theirinves t ment, b ut no-one 's buying  t he p r i vat e jet andyacht an y time so o n.
It do esn't  ta ke any th ing  shad y-soun d ing  like  a bai tand sw itchfo r Facebo ok to
lose all of thatbusine ss, i t j ust takes  in c rea sing cost -per -whatevera b itmoreunt i l the  ret u rn  on inves tmen t  is no lo n ge r a s af e bet. At t h a t  po int,the y  loseto o ther options with either general ly b e t ter  re t urns  ( so you don't
c are  a b o ut the o dd  few percen t, becau se you k now yo u're s till co m f or t ably
w inni ngoverall)oram ore pre di ct a ble mo del(s o youcan st i ll r u n  it on
tighter m argin s ) .

~~ ~ 
mr tronIthink t h e
 and_really
focussed on_getting those page owners_to buy_ads_to maintain_their_previous
view numbers.

Maybe page_owners are paying_for now, potentially reliant_on traffic, but_I
don't_think they're going to be happy paying forever when free alternatives
will crop up again._The_traffic quality_is_reported_as being low (many mis-
clicks_on mobile). If the profit_isn't there_then business won't be able to
afford to pay_in_the long run.

Maybe_I don't want to see posts for 'Jim's oil_change' every three seconds,
but good content_is getting cut_away_also_making FB far more_boring.

~~~
Silhouette
I don't know if I'd call_it a bait and switch, because_you never really knew
exactly what you were_getting with Facebook anyway. The kind_of auction system
they use is_practically designed_to avoid transparency (and they're_obviously
not alone in_that among_on-line ad platforms).

It_always comes down to the numbers,_though. If we're_advertising a small
business on Facebook, and_it_generates more in_revenues_from_sales than_it
costs in customer_acquisition,_it's still_a_net win. Is it the best_place_we
could have invested those advertising funds? Maybe,_maybe not, but it
certainly_becomes_less attractive as their_cost-per-whatever figures go up,
and no_matter how much they fudge the_presentation, we_still know_how much we
paid overall and how much revenue we got in_return.

In any case, every time this_comes up there are_plenty of_posters_who have
small businesses_and_make the_above argument, but generate revenues in the
100-200%_bracket, i.e.,_they're at least breaking even and_maybe doubling
their investment, but_no-one's_buying the private jet and yacht_any time soon.
It doesn't take anything_shady-sounding like a bait and_switch_for_Facebook to
lose all of that_business, it just takes increasing cost-per-whatever_a bit
more until_the return on investment is no longer_a_safe bet. At that point,
they lose_to_other options with either generally better_returns_(so_you don't
care about the odd_few percent, because you know you're_still comfortably
winning overall) or a more predictable model (so_you can still_run it on
tighter margins).

~~~
mrtron
I think_the