For those of you who missed it, on Jan 11, Facebook announced that it plans to alter its algorithm, so that you will see more from friends and families, and less from publishers and brands.

For marketers, this is, well, certainly worrying. How are you going to generate ROI if you can't reach people? I’m sure we all remember the shitstorm around the decline in organic reach.

Before I go any further, I’ll hedge my bets and throw in a caveat. This announcement came out while I was in bed last night, so these are very early thoughts. Expect a slightly unformed brain-dump rather than a social strategy. 

Whenever Facebook makes one of these announcements, marketers see it as something that needs to be fought. We need to combat these changes so we don’t lose out. 

This might be the wrong reaction. We should probably be thinking more closely about why they are making these changes, and what opportunities they represent.  

In order to frame this, we probably need to think about the history of big brands on social platforms a little bit. 

I've been lucky enough to work with some very interesting businesses in all sorts of sectors, many of them with a genuine commitment to the customer at the heart of their activities. But even so, very few of them have really (and I mean *really*) been willing to 'do social properly' – to take a long time, and build a very strong audience with lots of interactions. This isn’t an attack by any means. Lots of businesses have legitimate reasons for this. In some cases, it just makes sense for social to be purely customer service. In others, social is just too extensive to maintain a solidified presence across markets. The list goes on. 

But it’s safe to say that a lot of organic reach declined because we just weren’t providing content that was ‘social’ enough. We swamped platforms with mid-level, bland stuff that led to content shock among audiences, so we had to start paying to reach them. But jumping the line with paid meant that we didn’t really have to stop and reconsider our content strategies.

On top of this, many businesses just didn’t have the patience to slowly build their audience. They want ROI, and they want to know what it is right away, so again, we fell back on tried-and-tested advertising approaches. In many cases, we threw money at the problem, paying our way to the top. Essentially, we ‘cheated’, and got into people’s feeds by paying, rather than because they genuinely wanted us there. 

So what has this got to do with the latest update? Well, if all that paid content won't show up anymore, what will?

Content shared by friends and family.

We need to start making content that people not only want to share, but want to share with commentary. Inviting their friends and family to comment and discuss it. Think of this as something akin to 'Quote Tweet'. That's a form that (broadly speaking) indicates a far higher form of engagement than a simple retweet. It's the same with shares on Facebook.

Does someone sharing your cool video really count as major engagement? What if they send it directly to a friend with "Hey bro, check out this - are you still looking for a new car/vacuum/grocery service? This is ideal" attached.

So it's word-of-mouth marketing. It's genuine discussion and deep interest. It's real relevance. It's also influencer marketing, from the most powerful influencers in people's lives: Friends and family.

This is tough to do, especially if you are a business that deals in low-interest categories. It's harder to get messaging across. But it is an interesting opportunity, because it means social (or at least, Facebook) could be moving away from the glossy sexiness of traditional advertising, and could possibly become something separate. In some ways, it might be comparable to SEO, another area where you have to really commit to strong content, over an extended timeline, if you want real, ongoing success.

A lot of this decision is based around Facebook's desire to be A Trusted Source. To bury 'Fake News'. I'm on the fence about whether it's really up to platforms to police the nonsense spewed by users, but I'm certainly willing to admit that being able to spread claptrap about the Earth being flat isn't doing anyone any favours. In order to cut through, you are going to have to come up with content and messages that fulfil certain criteria:

  1. It should be verifiable. Research and sources need to back up your claims.
  2. They should be damned interesting. Not just to read, but to talk about.
  3. They shouldn't rely on paid to support them. They should spread on their own merits.

Of course, there is the question of Facebook's huge ad revenue. It doesn't want that to go anywhere, so it is unlikely to be punishing people who throw hundreds of millions of dollars at it every year. So it's also quite possible that this is a way of pushing brands into using new formats. Facebook Watch for example, is a massive opportunity for brands with the budgets to produce it, and increasing this content will help make Facebook more of a true media platform, with a sideline in connections. Facebook is not a company that can be accused of not playing the long game. Users are all over video, so this would be a commercial strategy that makes sense.

Overall I think this is a good thing. As brands we're often slow to adapt to challenges these changes throw at us, but overall this feels as though it'll mean no more hiding places for bullshit clickbait, and a 'less but better' approach to content.

Or maybe we'll just be able to buy our way around it.

Subscribers can download Econsultancy's Social Media Best Practice Guide and Paid Social Media Advertising Best Practice Guide.

Matt Owen

Published 12 January, 2018 by Matt Owen

Matt Owen is a marketing consultant based in London. He was previously Head of Social at Econsultancy and currently runs Atomise Marketing. Opinions expressed are author's own.

204 more posts from this author

You might be interested in

Comments (4)

Pete Austin

Pete Austin, Founder and Author at Fresh Relevance

I think organic reach only works for brands with aspirational versions of the content that people already share. Brands in fields where people ALREADY share stuff. For example leisure activities, holidays, travel, hotels, top-end restaurants, fashion brands, estate agents. Brands in boring fields would do better elsewhere. For example I like ATS Euromaster but normal people don't share posts about MOT tests. Or banking, insurance, plumbing, food shopping...

Content from other brands is not shareable unless they produce clickbait, or take a lesson from influencers and viral memes and push the envelope. E.g. the poundland elf (somewhat NSFW):

7 months ago

Tom Winstanley

Tom Winstanley, Head of Consulting, VP | @wisetothenew - NTT DATA UK at NTT Data UK Consulting and IT Solutions Limited

I couldn't agree more with the spirit of this posting. Unless content is engaging and invites conversation, no conversation will be had and the content will be perceived of as spam. This is true across all channels, but is especially true in the context of Facebook's Newfeed!

7 months ago

Natalie Rockall

Natalie Rockall, Founder at Econsultancy Guest Access TRAININGSmall Business Multi-user

As an email marketing specialist, I know I'm biased, but for me, this re-enforces the risk of marketing through a third party and not having a truly direct relationship with prospects and customers.

You're always at the mercy of their changes and a lot of time without any notice. Now is the time for businesses to really ramp up their email acquisition strategy through social media and gather email addresses from their Facebook audiences. Don't get me wrong social media will still play a very important part in the marketing for most brands, but I'd advise not relying on one channel alone.

7 months ago


Matt Lovell, Head of Customer Data, Insight & Analytics at Eurostar International Ltd.

Really interesting article. For me this can only be an improvement that will benefit both customers and brands (once they embrace it). At the moment there is so much clutter across Facebook that it's doing more to turn consumers away than encourage them to embrace it so anything to improve this can only be a good thing.

I'm not sure I agree with Natalie the email front though. To me social and email are the same in ways to interact with customers - there are plenty of brands that I'm happy to interact with on Social Media but wouldn't want to be bombarded with emails from and it's important to understand that distinction. I'd also argue that in email you have the same issue of working through multiple third parties in ISPs who you are then constantly battling to avoid being placed in a promotions folder or worse, spam.

7 months ago

Save or Cancel

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Digital Pulse newsletter. You will receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.