Facebook aquire..

ijjysmith · February 20, 2014

Why didn't they just buy Everton?

BULBS

Deleted member 28206 · February 20, 2014

Facebook failed at a mobileOS, and the attempt to break that area, they will own the content now.

Dylan · February 21, 2014

Bigmaclad said:
What Facebook has effectively done is bought 450 million phone numbers, that they could potentially sell on for a massive profit...

When you install Facebook on your phone they get your number.....

SerenityNigh · February 21, 2014

Dylan said:
When you install Facebook on your phone they get your number.....

But they've never called! I'm beginning to wonder if it was all worth it.

WA Toffee · February 21, 2014

Facebook paid 19 Billion for it and it has 450 million users, yet until i opened this thread, I had never heard of it. And by reading what it does, I don't think I will have any need for it

Deleted member 28206 · February 21, 2014

Photos,contacts, push notifications. It's more than just messaging.

steken1 · February 21, 2014

Bruce Wayne said:
Not a great advert though is it? Google earns so much from advertising because people are actively searching for the things they serve adverts for. That's not the case elsewhere. I mean they can serve pretty targeted ads on GMail, yet I can't recall ever paying attention to an ad, much less clicking on one. Ditto for Facebook.

This whole thing about targeting people is massively over-hyped, as you're targeting people in an environment in which they don't want to be targeted. I mean how much money is wasted on the ads you have before YouTube videos?

You'd be better off spending that money on making your products/service better.

Who's to say that they'll target them in whatsapp?

The data they've collated has untold uses right across the digital spectrum.

Bruce Wayne · February 21, 2014

steken1 said:
Who's to say that they'll target them in whatsapp?

The data they've collated has untold uses right across the digital spectrum.

That's just it though, it's data that isn't that valuable because the context is all wrong. I mean Amazon do well no doubt out of their 'those that bought this bought that' algorithm because people are there to shop. They're in the buying frame of mind.

I doubt anyone is in the buying frame of mind when they're on either Facebook or WhatsApp. If they were then more than 1 in 500 people would want to click on the ads. That 99.8% of people ignore them completely suggests that data is worth diddly squat.

The only reason it's being valued so highly is because if you throw enough rubbish at the wall, some of it will stick. That's the spammer mentality.

The Esk · February 21, 2014

Bruce Wayne said:
That's just it though, it's data that isn't that valuable because the context is all wrong. I mean Amazon do well no doubt out of their 'those that bought this bought that' algorithm because people are there to shop. They're in the buying frame of mind.

I doubt anyone is in the buying frame of mind when they're on either Facebook or WhatsApp. If they were then more than 1 in 500 people would want to click on the ads. That 99.8% of people ignore them completely suggests that data is worth diddly squat.

It's not about what you buy when on WhatsApp its the underlying data that is so valuable. Data such as time spent on the App, roaming patterns, distribution of contacts, data extraction from aggregated content, usage patterns - there are literally hundreds if not thousands of different data sets relating to mobile usage which are hugely valuable.

Increasingly people access the internet through mobile devices, not desk tops - this acquisition strategically is so important to Facebook - it gives them the hottest growth story in mobile communications with huge room for further growth, and an App that is used everyday by more than 70% of its subscriber base.

Foot Long Hot Dog · February 21, 2014

Bruce Wayne said:
Not a great advert though is it? Google earns so much from advertising because people are actively searching for the things they serve adverts for. That's not the case elsewhere. I mean they can serve pretty targeted ads on GMail, yet I can't recall ever paying attention to an ad, much less clicking on one. Ditto for Facebook.

This whole thing about targeting people is massively over-hyped, as you're targeting people in an environment in which they don't want to be targeted. I mean how much money is wasted on the ads you have before YouTube videos?

You'd be better off spending that money on making your products/service better.

I think that's a great point. It's a subject that I'm really interested in tbh. Social media is by definition a 'social' pastime. However, having done plenty of facebook advertising I can tell you that it does indeed work. You can target age groups & geographic areas, you pay only for the click throughs. I've run small cost campaigns (£500) that have yielded 1.8M impressions, before they've hit their click through limit of circa 600. So whilst the hit rate is miniscule, the exposure is vast & you can't quantify the tangible impact of awareness marketing, but you can say that it generally has a positive impact.

Bruce Wayne · February 21, 2014

the esk said:
It's not about what you buy when on WhatsApp its the underlying data that is so valuable. Data such as time spent on the App, roaming patterns, distribution of contacts, data extraction from aggregated content, usage patterns - there are literally hundreds if not thousands of different data sets relating to mobile usage which are hugely valuable.

Increasingly people access the internet through mobile devices, not desk tops - this acquisition strategically is so important to Facebook - it gives them the hottest growth story in mobile communications with huge room for further growth, and an App that is used everyday by more than 70% of its subscriber base.

Facebook has a couple of billion users though, with the majority accessing it via their mobile. Surely they have all of that data already?

I mean if Facebook have access to that data, presumably so too do Google/Apple, as the platforms that these apps run on?

The same arguments were made when Microsoft bought Skype (for a whole lot less money) and yet that deal didn't turn MS into a mobile behemoth. We have to remember that Windows Live Messenger had as many users as WhatsApp, yet MS shut that down last year.

Blackberry also had a similar service (also wildly popular with users), yet that hasn't stopped RIM from dwindling away into obscurity.

As I said at the beginning, I didn't know anything about this app before this week, but it sounds from what I've read that the data currently held by WhatsApp isn't valuable at all because it doesn't collect any kind of demographic data from users. Will we see that data be merged with Facebook's own data therefore and how will users react to that?

I suppose only time will tell whether it will be a good deal. The vast majority of mergers and acquisitions fail to deliver value, but maybe this one will be different. Sure is a hefty punt though.

Bruce Wayne · February 21, 2014

Foot Long Hot Dog said:
I think that's a great point. It's a subject that I'm really interested in tbh. Social media is by definition a 'social' pastime. However, having done plenty of facebook advertising I can tell you that it does indeed work. You can target age groups & geographic areas, you pay only for the click throughs. I've run small cost campaigns (£500) that have yielded 1.8M impressions, before they've hit their click through limit of circa 600. So whilst the hit rate is miniscule, the exposure is vast & you can't quantify the tangible impact of awareness marketing, but you can say that it generally has a positive impact.

Interesting. What's your cost per sale like? Does it compare well with Adwords etc.?

Foot Long Hot Dog · February 21, 2014

Bruce Wayne said:
Interesting. What's your cost per sale like? Does it compare well with Adwords etc.?

Adwords is more expensive, but arguably more directly effective. Measuring genuine ROI is difficult, we generally base the success or failure on the effect on our site hit rates, via google analytics. However, the 'brand' awareness effects are intangible, but when you compare the cost per exposure to say a 48 sheet poster site or a radio ad, then there's no comparison.

njligernj · February 21, 2014

Foot Long Hot Dog said:
I think that's a great point. It's a subject that I'm really interested in tbh. Social media is by definition a 'social' pastime. However, having done plenty of facebook advertising I can tell you that it does indeed work. You can target age groups & geographic areas, you pay only for the click throughs. I've run small cost campaigns (£500) that have yielded 1.8M impressions, before they've hit their click through limit of circa 600. So whilst the hit rate is miniscule, the exposure is vast & you can't quantify the tangible impact of awareness marketing, but you can say that it generally has a positive impact.

Be careful with Facebook ads. This video is looking more at the likes side of things but if their ad product is insane garbage in one area it's not much of a leap to suggest shenanigans may be afoot in other areas: