tag:www.econsultancy.com,2008:/topics/facebook Latest Facebook content from Econsultancy 2018-04-26T12:22:11+01:00 tag:www.econsultancy.com,2008:BlogPost/69976 2018-04-26T12:22:11+01:00 2018-04-26T12:22:11+01:00 What Facebook and Instagram's big API changes could mean for brands Patricio Robles <p>So what are the changes exactly?</p> <p>Facebook will now require apps that use the Pages, Events and Groups APIs to undergo an app review process. It is also limiting the information that can be obtained through these APIs.</p> <p><strong>Gone:</strong> the ability to use Facebook's Search API with users, pages, groups and events. <strong>Gone soon:</strong> the App Insights API.</p> <p>Facebook is also adding major restrictions to Facebook Login, which allows third parties to allow users to log in to their services using their Facebook accounts.</p> <p>It came to light last week that <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/19/web-trackers-exploit-facebook-login-api-to-collect-user-data.html">hidden trackers were collecting data</a> made available through Facebook Login, so now, third parties can't obtain user information like education, work, relationship status and various interests, such as books, games and music, through Facebook Login. </p> <p>Finally, Facebook has sped up its <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/03/instagram-limits-user-data-access-unofficial-apps/">deprecation of its old Instagram API Platform</a>, which was originally slated to be killed off over the next two years.</p> <h3>The brand impact</h3> <p>In announcing the changes to its platform, Facebook stated “We never make these platform changes lightly, but at the same time, there's nothing more important to us than privacy and security. We know these changes are not easy and we regret any disruption caused, but we believe these updates will help strengthen trust in our broader developer ecosystem.”</p> <p>For brands that have built their own Facebook apps, or implemented Facebook Login, some of these changes could break key functionality. Of course, most brands active on Facebook haven't built their own apps using the Facebook and Instagram APIs, but many use third-party tools that rely on those APIs. For instance, brands frequently turn to third party services that allow them to more efficiently manage their Facebook Pages and Instagram accounts.</p> <p>Some of the changes that Facebook is making could conceivably impact these services. What's more, given the fact that the scrutiny of Facebook's collection and use of data likely isn't going to subside anytime soon, it's entirely possible if not probable that more changes could be coming.</p> <p>And while Facebook is the focus of the discussion around data, it isn't the only player making changes that could fundamentally alter how brands interact with social platforms. For instance, in a clear effort to address concerns over the use of bots to meddle in elections, Twitter earlier this year <a href="https://blog.twitter.com/developer/en_us/topics/tips/2018/automation-and-the-use-of-multiple-accounts.html">announced changes to its API platform</a> that will also impact legitimate services that help companies manage multiple accounts and automate some of their activities.</p> <p>Twitter this month <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/06/twitter-delays-api-change-that-could-break-tweetbot-twitterific-etc/">delayed</a> some of those changes to give third parties behind popular Twitter clients like Tweetbot and Twitterrific time to switch over to a new API, but that new API will still potentially leave them in a position where they can't offer their users, which include brands, functionality they offer today.</p> <p>With that in mind, the message is clear: to quote Bob Dylan, “the times they are a-changin'.” Facebook, Twitter and other social platforms are being forced to change how third parties interact with their services, and that means those third parties will have to change how they interact with their audiences on those services.</p> tag:www.econsultancy.com,2008:BlogPost/69947 2018-04-16T13:39:46+01:00 2018-04-16T13:39:46+01:00 Five things we learned from Mark Zuckerberg's Capitol Hill testimony Patricio Robles <p>Here's what we learned from Zuckerberg's <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/04/10/transcript-of-mark-zuckerbergs-senate-hearing/">two days of testimony</a>.</p> <h3>Many lawmakers know very little about technology</h3> <p>It was readily apparent that many of the lawmakers questioning Zuckerberg had, at best, a rudimentary understanding of the digital technologies associated with Facebook. Specifically, lawmakers seemed to struggle to get their heads around digital advertising ecosystem and how data is collected and used to target advertisements to consumers through digital channels.</p> <p>This worked to Zuckerberg's advantage, particularly on the first day of his testimony. Instead of hitting the Facebook CEO with meaningful if not insightful questions, Zuckerberg was able to spend much of his time educating lawmakers on concepts familiar to professionals as well as tech savvy consumers.</p> <h3>There's a lot Mark Zuckerberg claims he doesn't know</h3> <p>While it's clear that many lawmakers could use a digital crash course, it also became clear that there's a lot Facebook's CEO apparently doesn't know about his own company's operations. Zuckerberg told lawmakers “I'll have my team get back to you”, or some variation of that, <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/mark-zuckerberg-will-follow-up/">dozens of times</a>.</p> <p>The Facebook chief's apparent lack of knowledge raised lots of eyebrows and some observers suggested his lack of knowledge was feigned ignorance in some instances.</p> <p>Take, for example, U.S. Senator Roger Wicker's <a href="https://www.news18.com/news/tech/does-facebook-track-your-activities-even-after-you-log-out-zuckerberg-doesnt-know-1714507.html">question</a>, “There have been reports that Facebook can track user's browsing activity even after the user has logged off the Facebook platform. Can you confirm whether or not this is true?”</p> <p>The Facebook chief told Wicker that in the interest of accuracy, “it'll probably be better to have my team follow up with you on this.” Of course, the answer to Wicker's question was <em>yes</em>. In fact, last year, Facebook managed to successfully defend itself against a lawsuit <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/03/facebook-track-browsing-history-california-lawsuit">related to its tracking of users after they had logged out</a>.</p> <h3>Facebook is relying heavily on AI</h3> <p>Investment in AI is booming in lots of industries, including <a href="https://econsultancy.com/blog/67745-15-examples-of-artificial-intelligence-in-marketing">marketing</a>, <a href="https://www.econsultancy.com/blog/69797-how-ai-is-transforming-healthcare">healthcare</a> and <a href="https://www.econsultancy.com/blog/69732-td-bank-s-acquisition-of-an-ai-firm-highlights-the-growing-importance-of-ai-in-banking">banking</a>. When it comes to many of the challenges Facebook is facing, such as hate speech and extremist content, both of which have been implicated in brand safety scandals, Zuckerberg's responses revealed that Facebook is betting AI will play a major role in solving them.</p> <p>In one exchange, Zuckerberg stated “building AI tools is going to be the scalable way to identify and root out most of this harmful content.” But he also later acknowledged that AI introduces a plethora of thorny ethical issues.</p> <p>He also admitted that AI isn't perfect, revealing that while Facebook's current AI tech has been successful in identifying terrorist content, hate speech is much more difficult to identify in part because what constitutes hate speech is often subject to debate. While Zuckerberg is obviously optimistic about his company's ability to improve his company's AI tech, the question is what it will do if AI doesn't prove to be as effective as Zuckerberg expects it to be.</p> <h3>It doesn't appear that regulation is imminent</h3> <p>Will Facebook face a regulatory crackdown? Reading between the lines last week would suggest that lawmakers are likely to do something. But there were few indications that slapping new regulations on Facebook will be a top priority.</p> <p>To the contrary, there were many indications that lawmakers would tread carefully and continue their fact-finding efforts. It was also fairly obvious that Facebook will have a warm seat at the table when lawmakers do get down to business drafting legislation, which isn't surprising given that the company, like most its size, has a small army of lobbyists and has contributed funds to many lawmakers.</p> <h3>But this is just the beginning</h3> <p>While Zuckerberg managed to leave Washington D.C. largely unscathed thanks in large part to technologically challenged lawmakers, Facebook is not out of the woods. </p> <p>Despite suggestions that Facebook's biggest crisis will blow over, the sentiment around privacy and user data has changed and with the <a href="https://econsultancy.com/hello/gdpr-for-marketers/">GDPR</a> coming into effect in the E.U. and U.K. in a little over a month, as this author <a href="https://www.econsultancy.com/blog/69935-companies-should-consider-embracing-the-gdpr-even-where-they-don-t-have-to">argued previously</a>, the free-for-all environment that companies have been operating in is going away.</p> <p>Up next: expect lawmakers to expand their scrutiny to other large tech companies, including Google, which might be sitting on an even larger treasure trove of user data than Facebook. In fact, one lawmaker even asked Mark Zuckerberg if he'd offer suggestions for other individuals they should ask to appear. We'll see if Zuckerberg's team gets back to him on that request.</p> tag:www.econsultancy.com,2008:BlogPost/69935 2018-04-10T11:00:00+01:00 2018-04-10T11:00:00+01:00 Companies should consider embracing the GDPR even where they don't have to Patricio Robles <p>In <a href="http://tacd.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/TACD-letter-to-Mark-Zuckerberg_final.pdf">a letter</a> to Mark Zuckerberg, members of the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue, a coalition of US and EU consumer groups, wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>The GDPR helps ensure that companies such as yours operate in an accountable and transparent manner, subject to the rule of law and the democratic process. The GDPR provides a solid foundation for data protection, establishing clear responsibilities for companies that collect personal data and clear rights for users whose data is gathered. These are protections that all users should be entitled to no matter where they are located.</p> </blockquote> <p>The letter comes less than a week after Zuckerberg <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-ceo-privacy-exclusive/exclusive-facebook-ceo-stops-short-of-extending-european-privacy-globally-idUSKCN1HA2M1">stated</a> that he agreed “in spirit” with the GDPR but refused to commit to adopting it worldwide. “We're still nailing down details on this, but it should directionally be, in spirit, the whole thing,” he told Reuters, a statement that is unlikely to satisfy the growing number of critics of his company.</p> <p>While it remains to be seen whether or not Facebook will eventually give in, the situation does raise an interesting questions: should companies adopt the GDPR as a global standard, applying it to users and customers they aren't required to?</p> <p>Here are four reasons why they should consider it.</p> <h3>GDPR compliance is no simple task</h3> <p>While many companies with the greatest exposure to GDPR risk are still ill-prepared for its impending implementation, as the risks come into focus and the inevitable initial enforcement actions demonstrate that they're not merely theoretical, expect to see a scramble for compliance. </p> <p>Unfortunately, complying with the GDPR is not exactly a straightforward process. Understanding what the rules are and figuring out what specific actions need to be taken to comply has proven to be quite an undertaking for many companies. Given that, companies should consider that if they're going to make a substantial investment of time and money to comply, it might make a lot of sense to leverage that investment across all their operations. </p> <h3>Global application might be easier</h3> <p>For many companies, trying to treat individuals subject to the protections of the GDPR differently than individuals who aren't might actually prove to be more difficult and costly than simply treating all individuals the same regardless of where they're located. </p> <p>Consider, for example, the fact that a US citizen who moves to an EU country <a href="https://www.itgovernance.eu/blog/en/expert-gdpr-qa-international-transfers-brexit-and-eu-us-privacy-considerations/">would be</a> covered by the GDPR. For many companies, detecting such a move and responding to it might prove more difficult than it would seem it should be.</p> <h3>Similar regulation is likely coming outside of the EU</h3> <p>There's a growing consensus that GDPR-like regulation will be adopted outside of Europe, including in the US. While it's likely that there will be differences between regulations in different parts of the world, expect to see countries like the US look to the GDRP <a href="http://www.thedrum.com/news/2018/03/27/let-s-look-gdpr-global-data-protection-regulation-grapeshot">as a model</a> when they get around to creating their own scheme.</p> <p>This means companies that embrace the GDPR as a global standard will likely be better positioned to comply with similar regulations when and as they're implemented.</p> <h3>The tide has turned on privacy</h3> <p>Perhaps the biggest reason companies should consider applying their GDPR compliance to their global operations is that it's becoming increasingly evident that there is sea shift taking place vis-à-vis data collection, usage and protection.</p> <p>The Cambridge Analytica scandal is no longer just about Cambridge Analytica. Instead, Facebook's practices are being scrutinized in a way they never have been before and while it's still too early to predict what exactly will happen, the actions Facebook has taken to date suggest that even it knows the largely unregulated data Gold Rush is fast coming to an end. </p> <p>Put simply, in the post-GDPR world, data will have the potential to be a huge liability, not just an asset.</p> <p>The implication for companies: it might be wise to accept this and proactively prepare for substantially more rules around how data is collected and used.</p> <p><a href="https://www.econsultancy.com/reports/a-marketer-s-guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr"><img src="https://assets.econsultancy.com/images/0009/3207/gdpr_report.png" alt="gdpr" width="615" height="243"></a></p> <p><em>Note that this article represents the views of the author solely, and are not intended to constitute legal advice.</em></p> tag:www.econsultancy.com,2008:BlogPost/69932 2018-04-10T09:30:00+01:00 2018-04-10T09:30:00+01:00 No, 'the media' is not just out to get Facebook because it’s taking its advertising revenue James Carson <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">It’s *unbelievable* how far things have come. At the time, it was *crazy* to think that in 1 year : Zuckerberg would be testifying before Congress, Facebook might be regulated, or Cambridge Analytica manipulation elections would be on front-page headlines around the world.</p> — Tristan Harris (@tristanharris) <a href="https://twitter.com/tristanharris/status/983551599485177856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">10 April 2018</a> </blockquote> <p>But this obvious reporting will probably be met with a somewhat troubling sentiment that I’ve noticed coming from the influencers of LinkedIn, or various conference stages of late.</p> <p>It’s the claim that newspapers are ‘out to get’ Facebook, because it has eaten up all their advertising revenue and sent them into commercial turmoil. The incentive to report on Facebook’s problems is apparently a monetary one and the old media’s revenge is going to be made in column inches.</p> <p>This sentiment is regularly met with conference audience nods and hundreds of LinkedIn likes. Unfortunately, it is wrong. Wrong because editorial in media companies doesn’t really operate like that, wrong because it absolves Facebook of accountability and wrong because it simplifies a complicated issue in a multitude of confused ways. It is dangerous because it makes a fantasy of how the editorial and advertising ecosystem really operates. It is worth discussing each of these problems in the detail that they deserve - away from the 140 characters of social media. </p> <h3>Editorial doesn’t really operate like that</h3> <p>It all sounds so simple and rational. Each morning editorial get together with a representative from advertising, who tells them which stories from the last day did well (and thus monetised), and which didn’t. Furthermore, this advertising person will tell them the commercial agenda. “Coca Cola pulled out of a six figure deal last week, we should rough them up,” or “The Guardian won that pitch I thought we were better than them on, we should dig up some dirt on their newsroom practices.”</p> <p>Put like that, it sounds quite ridiculous, if not entirely fantastical. But, I can assure you, <em>it is</em> fantastical. In all my experience in media companies, I cannot remember a single time when a commercial representative was in a meeting or conference with editorial plans being specifically debated in tandem with advertising needs. For example, “Advertiser X wants you to cover that like this.” There are limited examples of this church and state divide being breached, but it is not in any way common (and it is itself a scandal if it does). Either I am suffering from a distinct form of selective amnesia after a decade, or this just isn’t a done thing.</p> <p>We might forget that newspapers are in fact not particularly rational economic enterprises. They don’t really trade on the rules of business that we’d normally think of. It is not a rational trade off between ‘Write 10x of X and we shall made £X’ – news reporting would cease to function if this was so. Furthermore, it is difficult to really comprehend a widespread strategy of press negativity funnelling advertising revenue away from Facebook and <em>back</em> to newspapers or news networks. There are plenty of other ways for companies to buy media, after all. </p> <p>So, to start with, we can rule out the simple notion that newspapers are out to get Facebook for commercial reasons: editorial don’t discuss advertising revenue as a matter of strategy, and newspapers are not rational commercial enterprises in any case.</p> <h3>Who is really covering the story?</h3> <p>There is also a serious problem with the perception that ‘newspapers’ are doing most of the reporting of the Cambridge Analytica and Facebook story. A quick overview can show how this doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The outlets reporting in the greatest detail are Channel 4 and The Guardian, who broke the story, The New York Times, and BuzzFeed. Only two of them have a newspaper. That said, that group of companies is also well known for their progressive web presences, which makes defining them as old media at all somewhat difficult anyway. Indeed, The Guardian, with a daily circulation of 152,000 in print vs 150m+ monthly unique browsers online, has rather more clout on the web.</p> <p>BuzzFeed certainly never had any problem with Facebook taking revenue from them. Indeed, that company pretty much exists at its current scale because of Facebook. Yet BuzzFeed News has been rightly <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexkantrowitz/in-its-fight-against-fake-news-facebook-found-a-resiliant-fo?utm_term=.sl3r3kag3Q#.xsmWL47XLg">hounding Facebook for years about the presence of fake news</a> and the out of control nature of information dissemination within the platform. It has also gone to town in its detailed reporting of Facebook’s latest problems.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">NEW: Under fire for fake news and the exploitation of user data, Facebook is emphasizing groups as a key source of valuable engagement and content for users. This is our investigation (and a thread!) about why that could blow up in its face: <a href="https://t.co/uy99U2VpXr">https://t.co/uy99U2VpXr</a></p> — Craig Silverman (@CraigSilverman) <a href="https://twitter.com/CraigSilverman/status/975795093608087553?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">19 March 2018</a> </blockquote> <p>This blanketing of ‘the media’ as some sort of racket with a subversive goal lends itself to the uneasy falsehood of the ‘fake news media’ - constantly battered home in Donald Trump’s tweets. It implies that nothing coming from the established press can ever be done for anything but commercial incentives. That in itself is particularly worrying for what people hold to be real.</p> <p>We might take heed of Paul Farhi, writing in The Washington Post, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/dear-readers-please-stop-calling-us-the-media-there-is-no-such-thing/2016/09/23/37972a32-7932-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?noredirect=on&amp;utm_term=.b53bc9202e90">Dear reader: Please stop calling us ‘the media’. There is no such thing</a>. In which he writes:</p> <p>“Lumping these disparate entities under the same single bland label is like describing the denizens of the ocean as “the fish.” It’s true, but effectively meaningless.”</p> <h3>Facebook has got too big, and it’s out of control</h3> <p>The traditional press’ main responsibility to democracy is to make sure that the powerful are held accountable. For instance, this is why <em>The Telegraph</em> led its investigations into MPs expenses or the football for sale scandal, which led to England manager Sam Allardyce losing his job. Despite the cynical view, these ‘stings’ are not there just so people will buy more papers – investigative journalism is a grisly commercial reality. A lot of investigations don’t go anywhere and they very often don’t sell more papers. </p> <p>Traditionally, investigations are likely to focus on the authority of politics and government – after all, they ultimately rule over us. But in recent years, we have come to an uncomfortable reality – the waning of the state, and in every direction the growth of hugely powerful tech platforms that we will almost certainly encounter every single day – often for several hours. In some cases, <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Move-Fast-Break-Things-Undermined/dp/0316275778">it has been argued that these are monopolies</a>.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Again. Core problem w/FB (et al.) is that capture + exploitation of human attn. is the bus. model. Without changing that, "honest ads" do nothing. Privacy does nothing. And Zuck's testifying before Congress is petty status-downranking that will set this whole mess back by decades</p> — James Williams (@WilliamsJames_) <a href="https://twitter.com/WilliamsJames_/status/982708511531511808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">7 April 2018</a> </blockquote> <p>Working in digital marketing and media, it is so easy to praise the power and success of tech companies, but never take heed of uncomfortable realities. Facebook is massive. It employs 25,000 people yet connects with 2 billion people on a daily basis. In the last quarter of 2017 it collected nearly <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/facebook-earnings-q4-2017.html">$13 billion in revenue</a>. It is the biggest social network in the world, owns the next biggest, and owns the world’s single biggest messaging service.</p> <p>One might hope that with such great power came an acceptance of great responsibility – as Peter Parker was told. But we have had little of it. Facebook has previously downplayed its role in the spread of fake news, failed to notice Russian interference in the US election and not taken the appropriate measures to ensure Cambridge Analytica had deleted improperly acquired data. These, collectively, are serious problems.</p> <p>One specific example where Facebook's dark side is so obvious, yet hasn’t been discussed in much detail anywhere else, is the appalling state of the Facebook pages comment system. Go on the comment threads of any news page, or political party, and find something that would normally be considered unacceptable in real life – or certainly printed in a newspaper. A whirlpool of polarised hyperbole and anger, where the first and angriest is voted up into full view, despite a lack of truth in the expression. </p> <p>Yet Facebook acts without responsibility because it is the user’s expression and the company’s page – and not them as the technological enabler. This is a sentiment technology platforms have got away with for too long - in copyright issues, in hate speech and suggestions that high time spent on the platforms is entirely down to the user’s preference. </p> <p>Facebook has acted badly, and continued to act badly, and only now after scandal after scandal has there been a story that has affected enough people directly that people are starting to question – is Facebook really on our side? The reporting of these issues is not about advertising revenue; it’s that it is the right time to be asking such questions, after a decade of unbridled growth and <a href="https://www.itstimetologoff.com/2018/04/03/real-facebook-scandal-not-data-time-attention/">absorption of human attention</a>.</p> <h3>'Us vs. them' digital dogma</h3> <p>I will conclude on the point of what I have come to define as ‘digital dogma’. This is a pervading feeling that people who have made a success out of digital media will defend it at all costs and make simplistic 'us vs. them' points to further this aim. Somehow, we should get rid of the shackles of the old and firmly embrace the new. I have come across this wisdom repeatedly, and it will keep happening. Take the following examples:</p> <ul> <li>Content marketing is more effective than advertising (c.2012)</li> <li>Bitcoin will make you richer than the stock market ever could (late 2017)</li> <li>Social media is better than established media (last five years at least)</li> </ul> <p>These all sound strange in isolation, but that is so often what social media posts lambasting the old ways can boil down to. Let’s not forget that social media, in its limited characters lengths (and an extended character limited on Twitter is still pitiful) is extremely bad with the delicacies of expression. Thousands of Likes later, this nuance-stripped sentiment is hitting viral levels.</p> <p>The reality of the situation is much more nuanced. I’d argue, don’t believe the hype and simplicity. It is important to understand the non-commercial realities of news media before jumping to conclusions; that Facebook has simply not met the responsibilities expected of it, and that we are aware of the wider complexities of the media landscape that social media rarely lends to. We’ll all be better marketers for it.</p> tag:www.econsultancy.com,2008:BlogPost/69919 2018-04-04T18:42:00+01:00 2018-04-04T18:42:00+01:00 Facebook will soon require marketers to confirm they have user consent for Custom Audiences Patricio Robles <p>Facebook is building a tool that will require marketers “represent and warrant” to Facebook that they have this permission at the time they upload the data. While Facebook spokesperson Elisabeth Diana told TechCrunch that the company has always had terms around consent, “we're going to make that much more prominent and educate advertisers on the way they can use the data.”</p> <h3>Rules versus enforcement</h3> <p>When asked, Facebook's Diana did not indicate whether Facebook has actually ever cracked down on a marketer for a violation of these terms in connection with the use of Custom Audiences, and therein lies the problem for the world's largest social network: the Cambridge Analytica scandal suggests that Facebook has been lax when it comes to enforcing terms intended to protect users, is unable to police its platform because it's too big and open, or both.</p> <p>It's not clear that requiring marketers have consent to use the data they upload to Facebook Custom Audiences will actually prevent marketers from abusing the rules. After all, nothing will stop a less-than-savory marketer from representing to Facebook that it has consent when it doesn't, and it will be very difficult if not virtually impossible for Facebook to proactively identify violations.</p> <h3>A sea change for data on Facebook</h3> <p>Even if requiring marketers to explicitly state they have permission to use data doesn't in and of itself prevent abuse, it does suggest that Facebook is laying the groundwork to crack down on marketers if it's later discovered that they broke the company's rules. </p> <p>Once Facebook has a record of a marketer representing that its data use is above board, punishing it or terminating its relationship will be easier if Facebook learns the representation wasn't true. It could possibly even allow Facebook to take legal action against violators.</p> <p>When coupled with Facebook's <a href="https://www.recode.net/2018/3/28/17174098/facebook-data-advertising-targeting-change-experian-acxiom">decision to eliminate its Partner Categories targeting options</a>, which gave marketers the ability to target people based on offline behaviors tracked by third party partners, it's clear that Facebook is getting serious about how data is used on its platform.</p> <h3>Implications for marketers</h3> <p>That obviously, has significant implication for marketers. Specifically, Facebook's pending Custom Audiences certification requirement is a clear indication that the anything goes, Wild Wild West environment that has existed for years on the world's largest social network is fast coming to an end.</p> <p>But this trend change isn't just about Facebook's ongoing woes, and it <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/03/29/facebook-has-rolled-out-privacy-changes%E2%80%94but-its-doing-it-for-gdpr.html">isn't even exclusive</a> to Facebook. That's because the <a href="https://econsultancy.com/hello/gdpr-for-marketers/">GDPR</a> is coming into force in less than two months and under the GDPR, marketers will be required to obtain the consent Facebook is asking marketers to represent they have anyway. So more than anything else, Facebook's Custom Audiences update is just another reminder that the game is changing and marketers need to be prepared if they want to keep playing.</p> tag:www.econsultancy.com,2008:BlogPost/69902 2018-03-27T11:00:00+01:00 2018-03-27T11:00:00+01:00 Facebook is in real trouble: What it could mean for marketers Patricio Robles <h3>This time it's different</h3> <p>Facebook is no stranger to controversy and PR crises. For years, every move the world's largest social network has made has been put under a microscope and when it has made mistakes, the company has by and large been called out on them. Through trial by fire, the company has become adept at putting out PR fires.</p> <p>But the Cambridge Analytica backlash isn't like any PR fire Facebook has put out before for a number of reasons, including:</p> <p><strong>It comes at a time when a growing number of users are already engaging less and less with Facebook. </strong></p> <p><strong>It comes at a time when public opinion on large tech companies, including Facebook, has significantly soured.</strong> Concerns over foreign meddling in elections, fake news and censorship have managed to unite individuals and lawmakers of all political persuasions.</p> <p><strong>Polls indicate that trust in Facebook has plummeted in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.</strong> <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-cambridge-analytica-apology/americans-less-likely-to-trust-facebook-than-rivals-on-personal-data-idUSKBN1H10AF">According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll</a> released Sunday, well under half of Americans (41%) now trust Facebook to obey U.S. privacy laws. While big tech companies have been under fire, 66%, 62% and 60% of Americans indicated they trust Amazon, Google and Microsoft, respectively.</p> <p><strong>The backlash has not only been sustained, but has spread to Facebook's stock.</strong> Apparently a good number of investors are not happy with the constant stream of negative headlines and more than $80bn in share value was erased as investors sold Facebook stock last week.</p> <p><strong>People associated with Facebook are turning on the company.</strong> For example, Brian Acton, the co-founder of WhatsApp, which Facebook purchased for nearly $20bn in 2014, publicly endorsed the idea that users should delete Facebook.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">It is time. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/deletefacebook?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#deletefacebook</a></p> — Brian Acton (@brianacton) <a href="https://twitter.com/brianacton/status/976231995846963201?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 20, 2018</a> </blockquote> <p><strong>Mark Zuckerberg is getting involved in a big way.</strong> The company's CEO normally likes to communicate with the public through well-crafted Facebook posts but has been forced out of his comfort zone by this crisis. He conducted <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/21/us/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-latest/index.html">a CNN interview</a>, which was followed by <a href="https://qz.com/1236981/facebook-and-mark-zuckerberg-buy-newspaper-ads-to-say-sorry/">full-page apologies in major newspapers in the U.S. and U.K.</a></p> <p><strong>Regulators around the world seem more serious than ever about regula</strong><strong>ting Facebook and potentially punishing it for the Cambridge Analytica transgression.</strong> In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/26/ftc-confirms-facebook-data-breach-investigation.html">confirmed</a> Monday that it has opened a non-public investigation that could have serious consequences for Facebook as the company signed a consent decree with the consumer protection agency in 2011. If Facebook is found to have violated that decree, it could face harsh financial penalties of up to $40,000 per violation.</p> <p>If the above wasn't bad enough, perhaps the biggest indication that this time it's different for Facebook is that some advertisers are starting to press pause, something they've never done before. Last week, Mozilla Corp., the maker of popular software including the Firefox browser, and Commerzbank, Germany's second largest bank, announced that they were suspending their ad campaigns on the social network. On Monday, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-cambridge-analytica-pep-boys/pep-boys-suspends-facebook-ads-after-data-security-breach-idUSKBN1H21OH">they were joined by Pep Boys</a>, a major U.S. automotive retailer.</p> <p>In a statement, Pep Boys CMO Danielle Porto Mohn explained, "We are concerned about the issues surrounding Facebook and have decided to suspend all media on the platform until the facts are out and corrective actions have been taken."</p> <h3>What's next?</h3> <p>It's likely that Mozilla, Commerzbank and Pep Boys won't be the only advertisers to halt their campaigns or cut back on ads on the social network while the situation plays out. And there's the chance that as Facebook is put under the biggest microscope imaginable, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/03/26/facebook-scrutinized-pulling-android-data/457834002/">other issues will be discovered</a> and Cambridge Analytica will prove to be just the beginning of its woes, not the end of them.</p> <p>While it's too early to predict what exactly will happen next, it's not too early for marketers to start contemplating the possibility that this crisis is going to change Facebook, and social media generally, forever.</p> <p>At this point, it seems probable that Facebook and services like it will be forced to submit to greater regulation. The <a href="https://econsultancy.com/hello/gdpr-for-marketers/">GDPR</a> will likely just be the start. Countries within the E.U., <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/germany-seeks-tighter-facebook-controls-after-intolerable-leak">such as Germany</a>, are already suggesting tighter controls, and it would be surprising if the U.S. doesn't eventually adopt regulation similar to the GDPR. </p> <p>Some are pointing out that regulation could ironically help Facebook by creating barriers that smaller competitors won't have the resources to deal with, but that isn't necessarily good news for marketers. New regulations could make it more difficult for marketers to collect data from users and customers, and to use it to target customers on third-party platforms. In other words, marketers' ability to engage in retargeting, which is already impacted by the GDPR, could be hampered significantly by stronger regulations.</p> <p>New and stronger regulations would likely also hamper marketers' ability to use third party data. For example, when advertising through Facebook's Audience Network, marketers can take advantage of Facebook's data to target users based on demographics, interests, behaviors, locations and connections. They can also employ data from Facebook partners to target specific audiences. Tighter controls over the data third parties are allowed to offer in some form to marketers could upend the digital marketing ecosystem and especially hurt small and mid-size marketers that don't have huge repositories of first-party data.</p> <p><img src="https://assets.econsultancy.com/images/0009/3193/facebook-ads.png" alt="facebook ad platform" width="500"></p> <h3>The bottom line</h3> <p>Obviously, tech giants like Facebook, as well as large marketers and industry associations, aren't going to go down without a fight. Even if they resign themselves to greater regulation, you can be sure they'll be working behind the scenes to help craft that regulation as much as they can.</p> <p>But marketers, particularly those that don't have lobbyists of their own, should prepare for major changes in the coming weeks, months and years. Facebook's Cambridge Analytica crisis is arguably the watershed moment the industry has been hoping would never come: the incident that leaves the industry incapable of mounting a believable defense against the argument that it's not capable of policing itself.</p> <p><em><strong>Related resources:</strong></em></p> <ul> <li><a href="https://econsultancy.com/reports/a-marketer-s-guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/">A Marketer's Guide to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)</a></li> <li><a href="https://econsultancy.com/training/courses/general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr-online">GDPR Essentials for Marketers - Online Training</a></li> <li><a href="https://www.econsultancy.com/training/courses/gdpr-data-driven-marketing">GDPR for Marketers Training</a></li> </ul> tag:www.econsultancy.com,2008:Report/4680 2018-03-27T10:00:00+01:00 2018-03-27T10:00:00+01:00 Social Quarterly: Q1 2018 <p>The <strong>Social Quarterly</strong> is a series of presentations by Econsultancy, which curate the latest trends, developments and statistics in social media. The reports focus on distilling the most recent data and trends, aiming to provide a guide to what's happening now in social media and what you should be keeping an eye on.</p> <p>Social media evolves rapidly, and the <strong>Social Quarterly</strong> provides an overview of the latest trends in the industry. It contains information which can be integrated into your own documents, allowing you to prepare a pitch or use internally at a moment's notice.</p> <p>The Social Quarterly examines the current social media landscape, trends and updates on various social platforms and considers what will happen next. Updated four times per year, it will help to quickly surface statistics and trends you can use and react to immediately.</p> <p><strong>This edition of Social Quarterly includes</strong> stats about the importance of <strong>dark social</strong> and ad engagement on premium sites compared with social media. It also looks at updates to <strong>Instagram’s</strong> feed, the launch of <strong>WhatsApp Business</strong>, the global expansion of <strong>YouTube Go</strong> and new organisational tools on <strong>Pinterest</strong>.</p> <p>Bringing to life data from the <a href="https://econsultancy.com/reports/social-media-statistics">Internet Statistics Compendium</a> and the <a href="https://econsultancy.com/blog/">Econsultancy blog</a>, the Social Quarterly is the best of social in an easy-to-digest format.</p> <p>The Social Quarterly will allow you to:</p> <ul> <li>Stay up to date with regular developments across multiple social media platforms.</li> <li>Present and pitch at short notice with clear and effective data.</li> <li>Pinpoint areas in which you want to find out more and use the linked Econsultancy resources and blog posts to do this.</li> <li>Spot potential ways your company could be using social media but is not currently.</li> </ul> tag:www.econsultancy.com,2008:BlogPost/69884 2018-03-26T12:27:00+01:00 2018-03-26T12:27:00+01:00 What is cross-channel advertising and why do you need it? Nikki Gilliland <p>As a result of this dominance, Facebook and Google also lead the way when it comes to online advertising, accounting for more than <a href="https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/google-facebook-claim-60-2017-digital-ad-spend.html" target="_blank">60% of global online ad revenues</a>. </p> <p>While most brands or advertisers might focus on one channel, when used together the pair present an even bigger opportunity to target users at the exact right time. This can also be known as cross-channel advertising – i.e. the practice of using two or more channels in conjunction to elevate paid ad performance. </p> <p>So, what exactly are the benefits of cross-channel advertising and the platforms that provide it? Here’s more on the subject along with a few case studies.</p> <h3>Cross-channel explained</h3> <p>There are huge advantages to advertising via a single channel. Google AdWords can help brands target users based on device, location, and search relevancy. Likewise, Facebook’s ad platform provides an opportunity for rich and creative targeting based on specific user profiles.</p> <p>However, with users constantly switching between devices and channels, it’s easy for ads to become lost or diluted. Retargeting campaigns are often used to combat this, tracking users that have already visited a website or searched for something specific. </p> <p>Cross-channel advertising allows brands to get a step-ahead and bridge the gap between paid search and social channels, for example.</p> <p><img src="https://assets.econsultancy.com/images/0009/3046/advertising.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400"></p> <h3>The benefits</h3> <p>So, why else should brands consider a cross-channel ad campaign?</p> <h3>More focused campaigns </h3> <p>Different digital advertising channels have their own unique data sets and targeting options. With cross-channel tools, advertisers can take audience data from one channel and utilise it to optimise campaigns on another. Meanwhile, platforms can also help brands understand segments that are most likely to convert, and to refine campaigns accordingly.</p> <p>One example of this is from Spanish hotel group Meliá, which used Marin’s cross-channel platform to create a campaign based on real-time search intent. Meliá used its tools to identify what destinations users were searching for on Google, before being able to automatically generate custom audiences on Facebook based on these keywords. The campaign apparently resulted in a 30x increase in ROI compared to traditional Facebook campaigns, as well as a 22x increase in conversion rate.</p> <h3>Better insights</h3> <p>For advertisers, it can be difficult to know where to invest or how to spend precious budget. One of the biggest benefits of cross-channel advertising is that it brings together a more complete picture of customer data, helping brands to understand how ads are performing, and how users are behaving in different places (rather than on a single platform). </p> <p>In turn, this helps advertisers make better budgeting decisions, and unify the customer journey across all channels. Many cross-channel advertising solutions offer tools that help to seamlessly reallocate budget among channels. </p> <p>One example of this is ride-sharing app Lyft, which managed to scale its regional campaigns on both search and social. More specifically, it was able to integrate mobile data into social campaigns, and optimise ads accordingly.  </p> <p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rCyLlTb9kJw?wmode=transparent" width="550" height="309"></iframe></p> <h3>A stronger message</h3> <p>As well as creating a single customer view, cross-channel advertising can also help brands to create and deliver a seamless customer experience – i.e. consistent and unified brand messaging across multiple channels and devices. </p> <p>This also allows brands to configure and personalise campaigns. For example, if a user sees or interacts with an ad for the first time on Facebook, they will be able to ensure that this ad is not repeated elsewhere, with the ability to deliver a more relevant ad on a different channel based on where the user is in the funnel. </p> <p>Short-term insurance provider Tempcover utilised this strategy. With its <a href="http://www.marinsoftware.com/resources/case-studies/tempcover-case-study" target="_blank">cross-channel campaign</a>, it was able to align copy in Website Conversion Campaigns on Facebook with text ads on Google. It also captured search intent signal from prospective customers on Google and used them to power full-funnel audience segmentation on Facebook. According to Marin, the campaign resulted in a 40% increase in ROI.</p> <p><img src="https://assets.econsultancy.com/images/0009/3047/Facebook_ads.JPG" alt="" width="484" height="330"></p> <h3>Higher chances of conversion</h3> <p>Finally, cross-channel advertising also creates more touchpoints for brands.</p> <p>With customers rarely converting the first time they see an ad, this means that customers can choose to interact and engage in the channels that they feel most comfortable, which in turn, could theoretically increase the chances of conversion.</p> <p><em><strong>Further reading:</strong></em></p> <ul> <li><a href="https://econsultancy.com/blog/69671-programmatic-advertising-trends-in-2018-what-do-the-experts-predict">Programmatic advertising trends in 2018: What do the experts predict?</a></li> </ul> tag:www.econsultancy.com,2008:BlogPost/69852 2018-03-08T13:15:00+00:00 2018-03-08T13:15:00+00:00 Will digital phenotyping ever be applied to pharma marketing? Patricio Robles <p>While pharma marketers have lots of room for improvement in terms of how they connect to professionals and consumers online, they're increasingly active in digital channels ranging from search to social.</p> <p>Through these digital channels, pharma marketers have the opportunity to connect healthcare professionals and consumers to content and resources that are relevant to conditions they treat, are being treated for, or need treatment for.</p> <p>Of course, thanks to regulations like <a href="https://econsultancy.com/blog/67498-digital-media-vs-hipaa-violations-risking-your-reputation-in-healthcare">HIPAA</a>, pharma marketers are far more limited in how they can target their digital ads. Use of first-party data is generally a no-no, and some otherwise commonly-used types of remarketing are also often not permissible.</p> <p>This makes it more difficult for pharma marketers to reach the specific people they want to reach. So they develop campaigns that are less granularly targeted and thus often more expensive. They purchase ads against specific condition-related terms. And so on and so forth.</p> <p>But in the not too distant future, is it possible that pharma marketers will have access to targeting solutions based on digital phenotyping?</p> <p>As the New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/25/technology/smartphones-mental-health.html">recently detailed</a> in a piece about digital phenotyping, which one study defined as “moment-by-moment quantification of the individual-level human phenotype in situ using data from personal digital devices, a growing number of tech companies and researchers “are tracking users' social media posts, calls, scrolls and clicks in search of behavior changes that could correlate with disease symptoms.”</p> <p>Much of the exploration of digital phenotyping to date has focused on mental illness and mood disorders. For instance, Mindstrong Health, a mental health startup, is analyzing smartphone usage in an attempt to detect signs of depression. And Facebook is already using artificial intelligence to scan content posted by users for signs of suicidal thought. In some cases, it has used its technology to display notifications or to alert local authorities so they can follow up and intervene if necessary.</p> <p>While there are significant questions about the accuracy of digital phenotyping, it's not difficult to see the potential for it to also be applied to digital marketing, giving pharma marketers the ability to target consumers on more than just demographics, stated interests, search keywords and the like.</p> <h3>The big question: will this ever happen?</h3> <p>That isn't clear. Facebook, for instance, <a href="https://www.statnews.com/2016/11/01/facebook-pharma-drug-ads/">has been vying for pharma ad dollars</a>, apparently with mixed success. The social media giant late last year <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/07/facebook-held-a-breakfast-to-promote-clinical-trials-strategy.html">held an event</a> to pitch pharma marketers on the use of Facebook to target users for clinical trials. At that event, it reportedly indicated that it would not allow pharma marketers to target users based on health conditions.</p> <p>Facebook's stance makes sense. Allowing pharma marketers to target its users based on conditions the social network knows or thinks they have would almost certainly lead to a PR backlash. There would no doubt be calls for legal and regulatory action. In Europe this sort of profiling is regulated by the new <a href="https://econsultancy.com/hello/gdpr-for-marketers/">GDPR</a>.</p> <h3>A reminder of the value of digital data</h3> <p>While it's possible that other players in the digital advertising ecosystem might be more willing than Facebook to apply digital phenotyping to marketing solutions – there is already a sizable and growing market for <a href="https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/312819/in-pharma-marketing-programmatic-offers-solutions.html">third-party data</a> – one of the most important take-aways for pharma marketers in the rise of digital phenotyping is that digital data is extremely valuable and might prove even more valuable than previously thought.</p> <p>Pharma marketers should keep this in mind as they develop homegrown digital initiatives.</p> <p><em>To learn more about digital transformation in Pharma, join us at ePharma in New York on March 21-23. Our VP of Research Stefan Tornquist will be discussing the future of digital and marketing with Anthony Lambrou, Director of Corporate Strategy and Innovation at Pfizer, as well as hosting a roundtable for you to learn, share and connect with fellow pharma marketers. Find out more and secure your spot:</em></p> <ul> <li><em><a href="https://lifesciences.knect365.com/epharma/agenda/3#epharma-roundtable-digital-transformation-to-future-proof-your-marketing">ePharma Roundtable: Digital Transformation to Future-Proof Your Marketing</a></em></li> <li><em><a href="https://lifesciences.knect365.com/epharma/agenda/3#main-stage-keynotes_the-future-of-digital-and-marketing">The Future of Digital and Marketing</a></em></li> </ul> tag:www.econsultancy.com,2008:BlogPost/69840 2018-03-05T15:29:00+00:00 2018-03-05T15:29:00+00:00 Facebook quietly rolls out new ad placements as Power Editor merges with Ads Manager Depesh Mandalia <h3>The lowdown</h3> <p>Power Editor was Facebook's attempt at giving advertisers better control in managing their ads. I first used it in 2012 when it existed <em>only</em> as a Chrome plugin. And a very temperamental, buggy one at that. </p> <p>But it gave deeper access than ever before into the growing amount of data that Facebook held on thier users. As the name suggests, it was a bunch of power tools for advanced advertisers.</p> <p>Whilst Ads Manager continued to develop in parallel, what became clearer over the years was that both product teams were often clashing over features, with overlap in functionality. Ads Manager tried to introduce more power editing features but people like myself still continued to veer towards Power Editor.</p> <p>With Facebook opening up their Ads API it allowed third parties to plug the gaps Facebook had created, such as split testing, something which Facebook introduced as a tool based on success of third party software providers. </p> <p>And this is the intelligent play Facebook made; allow third parties to accelerate functional development and then cherry pick the best to merge back into its own platform. A symbiotic relationship where third parties are allowed to profit from Facebook's shortcomings, knowing full well their income stream could be zapped at any moment (via API changes or code mergers back into the belly of the beast).</p> <p>As Facebook began bolting features and functionality into both Ads Manager and Power Editor they increasingly began to converge which led to the upcoming singularity - a single Ads Manager interface.</p> <p><img src="https://assets.econsultancy.com/images/0009/2667/ads_manager.png" alt="ads manager" width="615"></p> <p><em>Ads Manager</em></p> <p>Now you might read this and wonder why its worth reading an obituary of sorts for a tool which has run its course and only impacts around five million marketers that advertise on the platform worldwide.</p> <p>That same tool is responsible for generating billions in revenue, both for Facebook and for advertisers. My own first real experience of Power Editor's might was taking a relative unknown startup to an eight-figure revenue predominantly using Power Editor.</p> <p>It's certainly a positive step forward from Facebook to merge the two tools together, however if early indications are to go by there's going to be turbulance before it properly moves forward. Third party software tools will be watching extremely closely, to pounce on the shortcomings from this new version of Ads Manager. </p> <h3>Key changes to Ads Manager</h3> <p>These are taken directly from <a href="https://www.facebook.com/business/help/282701548912119?helpref=faq_content">Facebook's update page</a>; creating, editing and reporting of ads being the main areas of change: </p> <ul> <li> <strong>Creating ads:</strong> There are two potential workflows for ad creation - guided creation and quick creation. Guided creation is similar to the original Ads Manager workflow and walks advertisers through the entire creation process. Quick creation allows you to quickly create campaigns and then create ad sets and ads at a later time.</li> <li> <strong>Editing ads:</strong> When you want to edit your ads, you can make edits and publish these changes immediately, or you can make edits and save the changes for publishing later. </li> <li> <strong>Using reports:</strong> Reports are located in Ads Reporting under the main menu of Ads Manager. You can also create and customize reports in Ads Reporting.</li> </ul> <p><img src="https://assets.econsultancy.com/images/0009/2666/quick_creation.png" alt="quick creation ads manager" width="615"></p> <p><em>Quick creation in Ads Manager (image via Facebook)</em></p> <h3>Introducing Marketplace ads</h3> <p>Facebook have discussed opening up additional ad slots to help ease the increasing burden on inventory as more and more advertisers pile in. The first such initiative of 2018, following a clean up of the newsfeed, is here in the form of <a href="https://www.facebook.com/business/help/1648521258544455?helpref=faq_content">Marketplace ads</a> – currently open in the US and within selected accounts only.</p> <p>This quiet little rollout is significant because it's clear Facebook has been searching for ways to increase ad inventory the past 12 months. This is just the start. </p> <p>Facebook allows you to deliver ads specifically into marketplaces - it remains to be seen which creative types will be made available. But since Facebook allows you to target at the demographic, behaviour or interest level, it will be interesting to see how this placement could be used.</p> <p>Marketplace is thriving for Facebook and placements here could either try to compete at a product category level, or specifically target the person.</p> <p><img src="https://assets.econsultancy.com/images/0009/2671/Screen_Shot_2018-03-01_at_17.36.45.png" alt="marketplace ad" width="550" height="253"></p> <p><em>Marketplace ad preview</em></p> <p>Facebook are also exploring ads within Groups (for well over a year) which is another huge untapped area of inventory. For me this makes complete sense from an advertisers perspective, to be able to push right hand side or newsfeed ads into groups. However, groups are by virtue a closed wall experience used to theme a community and ads could cause disengagement if not done respectfully.</p> <p>2018 is certainly going to be a pivotal year for Facebook, whilst it reworks its new vision around community and meaningful engagement to improve the platform experience for all.</p> <p><em><strong>Econsultancy offers <a href="https://www.econsultancy.com/training/courses/social-media-paid-advertising">training in social advertising</a>. Subscribers can also download Econsultancy <a href="https://econsultancy.com/reports/paid-social-media-advertising">Paid Social Best Practice Guide</a>.</strong></em></p>