atans1

Posts Tagged ‘Facebook’

Facebook squeeze on anti-PAP sites continues

In Internet on 04/11/2016 at 9:24 am

Facebook warned on Wednesday that revenue growth could slow next year sending its shares into a tail spin.

One way to increase revenue as the FT reports is to squeeze those who use it for free to attract people to their sites and hence to ads.

Facebook has 4m advertisers, but 60m businesses use Facebook pages for free. If even a small proportion of those could be persuaded to pay to promote their posts, prices would go up.

FT

As I reported earlier our two mainstream anti-PAP alternative media sites have been affected by FB’s recent tweaks in how it promotes stuff.

[I]t more favorably promotes content posted by the friends and family of users, not publishers (Our anti-PAP sites, like all socio-political sites are considered publishers or news sites by Facebook).

The squeeze continues for them when FB makes life more difficult for the freeloaders.

I’m sure Terry’s Online Channel (TOC) will sutvive because Terry and others there work for free or for peanuts, and because it has the goodwill of the influencers of the online community. But at the The Idiots — S’pore (TISG) which claims it’s out to make money, lots of it, even though it had to recapitalise itself last year, things are different. It has no goodwill left among the influencers after its xenophobic stuff or articles that were more fiction than fact.

The internet giveth and then takes away.

But internet taketh away then giveth too

In the US

The Neighborhood Bookstore’s Unlikely Ally? The Internet

Mom-and-pop bookstores are emerging from the decimation of the last decade as they use social media to inspire a loyal customer base.

NYT Dealbook

And in India, Grofers is providing a grocery delivery service, relying on the traditional mom and pop (kirana) stores. And Amazon is testing such a system too in India. Meanwhile, 10i Commercial Services has a service enabling customers to place orders for goods not stocked locally, via a smart device belonging to a Indian local shop.

 

 

Anti-PAP sites lose traffic after Facebook tweaks algos

In Internet on 24/10/2016 at 4:47 am

Is Mark Zuckerberg sucking up to the PAP as part of his efforts to suck up to China ala Duterte?

Two tua kee socio-political sites (even though one says it’s a commercial news agency cum loudhailer for the govt and its agencies and not a socio-political site) are heavily dependent on Facebook to push out (“promote”) their stuff and so help them get views and ad revenue. Their readers are too cheap skate or really that poor? Or not willing to pay for BS even when they consume it avidly?

This reliance on Facebook was especially useful post the GE when readership fell across the board affecting ad income. Problem is that Facebook has tweaked its algorithms (as it does periodically).

It’s latest tweak in June means that it more favorably promotes content posted by the friends and family of users, not publishers (Our anti-PAP sites, like all socio-political sites are considered publishers or news sites by Facebook).

It says that content posted by publishers will show up less prominently in news feeds, resulting in significantly less traffic to the hundreds of news media sites that have come to rely on Facebook.

This means that these sites get less traffic, a lot less. And a lot loss viewers and even less ad revenue.

NYT in June reported:

Facebook said it expected a drop in reach and referral traffic for publishers whose audience comes primarily to content posted by the publisher’s official Facebook page. Facebook plans to start making the changes as soon as this week.

It will have less of an impact, however, if most of a publisher’s traffic comes from individual users sharing and commenting on their stories and videos. As has long been the case, publisher content that your friends interact with will appear higher in the feed compared to posts shared directly by a publisher.

Actually any third-party stuff on the publishers’ FB pages also gets fewer pushes

What this means is that when Chris K  posts something of mine on his FB page, I’ll get a lot more hits than if it’s posted by ownself on SGDaily’s Facbook page: better promotion by FB. No wonder Daniel Yap of TMG is pushing out a lot more TMG pieces on his personal FB wall. Smart man.

Maybe Terry should be doing the same for TOC? And Ravi for TISG when it runs constructive, nation-building, loudhailing stuff that S’poreans really need to know.

And pay Chris K to push out their stuff. After all both publications use him to attract the cybernuts even though he’s no nut. He’s a pensioner. Either that or persude him to do NS and promote their pieces for free.

Or pay FB to promote their stuff. FB is happy to push if it’s paid to promote.

Money talks.

And yes I’m simplifying what the tweaks are doing and why FB is doing what is it doing.

Facebook: Today S’pore, tom China

In China on 07/07/2016 at 5:19 am

The usual ang moh tua kee suspects are blaming the PAP IB of manipulating Facebook’s algorithms to get anti-PAP stuff taken off Facebook.They could be right in their usual attitudes of blaming the PAP (“PAP is always wrong”)and absolving an ang moh company (“Ang mohs know best”) of blame.

But have they ever tot that Facebook is using S’pore to test software for the China market.

Mark Zuckerberg has made it clear that he’s prepared to kowtow to if they’ll let Facebook in. He says he read president Xi’s writings and has invited China’s chief censor to dinner in his home. He’s even run in Beijing without a face-mask. But all to no avail.

So maybe he’s using Spore to test censorship software? Software that can detect and remove criticism of the PAP here that can be modified to detect and remove criticism of Xi, the CCP and other PRC authorities. Surely such software will allow Facebook into China? The Chinese would want competition for their own internet players, lest they think they are more powerful than the CCP.

Mark Zuckerberg a running dog of Xi and the CCP? Now that would upset the ang moh tua kees here: only PAPies do things for money, not ang moh billionaires from Silicon Valley.

 

How Facebook defines “active users”

In Financial competency, Internet on 09/02/2012 at 5:21 am

On the first page of Facebook’s prospectus, it puts the number of its “monthly active users” at 845 million people. It reports the “daily active users” as 483 million people.

Err: According to the company, a user is considered active if he or she “took an action to share content or activity with his or her Facebook friends or connections via a third-party Web site that is integrated with Facebook.”

Come again?

In other words, every time you press the “Like” button on NFL.com, for example, you’re an “active user” of Facebook. Perhaps you share a Twitter message on your Facebook account? That would make you an active Facebook user, too. Have you ever shared music on Spotify with a friend? You’re an active Facebook user. If you’ve logged into Huffington Post using your Facebook account and left a comment on the site — and your comment was automatically shared on Facebook — you, too, are an “active user” even though you’ve never actually spent any time on facebook.com.

Read more here

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/those-millions-on-facebook-some-may-not-actually-visit/?src=dlbksb

Facebook worth US$76.4bn: Russian bank

In Internet on 09/03/2011 at 9:36 am

Just a few months ago, an investment led by Goldman Sachs valued the social network at $50bn. Now, a group of analysts at an investment bank has looked at how the business is growing and come up with something 50% higher.

A study in BS analysis.

Internet investing: from heloo to zeloo

In Internet on 14/01/2011 at 5:50 am

Or the brutality of the Net. Or “Easy come, easy go”.

Remember MySpace? Latest woes — cutting half of staff.

MySpace valuation: That would put the valuation at about $500 million to $1.2 billion–with the lower end being LESS than Rupert paid for it, and the upper end being twice what he paid for it (hardly the steal of the century).
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-myspace-worth-zero-2010-2#ixzz1An0bhJ6J All in US$ and Murdoch paid US$580m for it

Facebook is now valued at US$50bn. But only a few yrs ago MySpace was “valued” at US$65bn, though the foot notes said US$5bn.

Facebook: The Chinese boy who got screwed

In Internet on 13/01/2011 at 5:17 am

Wayne Chang’s lawsuit claims he is entitled to a portion of the original $65m settlement made with Facebook.

The 27-year-old formed a file-sharing network called i2hub while studying at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, which he later merged with their social network ConnectU in 2004.

ConnectU was bought by Facebook as part of the settlement and Mr Chang said that means he is due a share of the deal.

Mr Chang said he was “back-stabbed” and that he has been treated the way the Winklevosses claim they have been treated by Facebook.

BBC Online article on the Facebook story.