FB - Facebook

[Liberty]

See, I'm a rock climber but I never have to search on Google for anything regarding rock climbing. However, its listed in my FB profile. When a new gym opened up in my neighborhood, I saw an ad from Facebook and clicked on it.

I'm also a Pink Floyd fan but I don't ever search for anything related to Pink Floyd on Google. Don't have a need to. When Roger Waters was playing in my town, I learned about it through an FB ad. I bought tickets by clicking on the link.

In both cases, my intent was latent.

There's a reason why Google is betting the farm on Google+. If they felt it was not monetizable, they wouldn't be diluting their search results with links from Google+ and risking their core business.

I never said it's not monetizable, just that it's a lot harder. Neither did I say that demographic info isn't valuable (hence Google+), just that it's only one piece of a very complex puzzle.

Your anecdotal evidence can be countered with other anecdotal evidence (all I see is spammy ads that remind me of Geocities-era banners, and big ad buyers have said recently that they were not satisfied with FB ads). What will matter in the end is how much money FB makes. Maybe they'll figure it out and hit jackpot, we'll see.

[valueInv]

See, I'm a rock climber but I never have to search on Google for anything regarding rock climbing. However, its listed in my FB profile. When a new gym opened up in my neighborhood, I saw an ad from Facebook and clicked on it.

I'm also a Pink Floyd fan but I don't ever search for anything related to Pink Floyd on Google. Don't have a need to. When Roger Waters was playing in my town, I learned about it through an FB ad. I bought tickets by clicking on the link.

In both cases, my intent was latent.

There's a reason why Google is betting the farm on Google+. If they felt it was not monetizable, they wouldn't be diluting their search results with links from Google+ and risking their core business.

I never said it's not monetizable, just that it's a lot harder. Neither did I say that demographic info isn't valuable (hence Google+), just that it's only one piece of a very complex puzzle.

Your anecdotal evidence can be countered with other anecdotal evidence (all I see is spammy ads that remind me of Geocities-era banners, and big ad buyers have said recently that they were not satisfied with FB ads). What will matter in the end is how much money FB makes. Maybe they'll figure it out and hit jackpot, we'll see.

http://www.inc.com/issie-lapowsky/facebook-ad-campaign-actually-works.html

[Liberty]

http://www.inc.com/issie-lapowsky/facebook-ad-campaign-actually-works.html

No doubt Facebook's PR people can find a bunch of success stories and point them out to journalists for their PR counter-attack to the bad publicity that was recently generated, but it doesn't change the fundamental difference between social network ads and search ads. What will matter in the end is dollars, and we'll have to wait and see for those.

[valueInv]

http://www.inc.com/issie-lapowsky/facebook-ad-campaign-actually-works.html

No doubt Facebook's PR people can find a bunch of success stories and point them out to journalists for their PR counter-attack to the bad publicity that was recently generated, but it doesn't change the fundamental difference between social network ads and search ads. What will matter in the end is dollars, and we'll have to wait and see for those.

If you read the article, that what they saying - social ads are different from search ads.

[Liberty]

If you read the article, that what they saying - social ads are different from search ads.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

[VAL9000]

I'm going to suggest that Facebook's ad potential is probably higher than the current capabilities of AdSense, which are a huge moneymaker for Google.  Facebook has the technology, data, and reach to push out ads that are better than Google's AdSense ads because they will be user-oriented instead of content-oriented.  My belief is that media sites are far more likely to generate clicks from Facebook driven ads because the content of those sites is generally uncorrelated with "intent".  Like how candied cereal commercials are aired during children's cartoons.  Nothing in the context of a cartoon indicates that Froot Loops should be advertised (unless the cartoon stars an enthusiastic toucan), but everyone knows that it's a really good idea.

Now I have noticed that many AdSense ads are starting to "follow me around".  e.g. I was evaluating some software and for the next there days I kept seeing banner ads for that software, even here on CoBF.  Pretty cool.  A little creepy but I have accepted it as a fact of the future. 

No position in Facebook but I love when a stock gets hammered for this reason.  I might dip my toe in if it gets really ugly.

[Liberty]

I'm going to suggest that Facebook's ad potential is probably higher than the current capabilities of AdSense, which are a huge moneymaker for Google.  Facebook has the technology, data, and reach to push out ads that are better than Google's AdSense ads because they will be user-oriented instead of content-oriented.  My belief is that media sites are far more likely to generate clicks from Facebook driven ads because the content of those sites is generally uncorrelated with "intent".  Like how candied cereal commercials are aired during children's cartoons.  Nothing in the context of a cartoon indicates that Froot Loops should be advertised (unless the cartoon stars an enthusiastic toucan), but everyone knows that it's a really good idea.

Now I have noticed that many AdSense ads are starting to "follow me around".  e.g. I was evaluating some software and for the next there days I kept seeing banner ads for that software, even here on CoBF.  Pretty cool.  A little creepy but I have accepted it as a fact of the future. 

No position in Facebook but I love when a stock gets hammered for this reason.  I might dip my toe in if it gets really ugly.

That's pretty much what I think too. Facebook ads will be closer to Adsense than search ads. While Google uses content on the site where you are plus cookies and google profiles to target those ads, Facebook will use its profile info + social graph + cookies from facebook connect and syndicated like buttons.

But IMO, ceteris paribus, both those types of ads provide less value to the user and advertiser than search ads (or adsense ads on more obviously commercial/niche websites, which can attract more 'primed' potential buyers). I never said facebook can't make money or that its ads don't have value, just that they're harder to monetize, in the same way that CTR and conversion on adsense must be lower than on search ads. Facebook has ginormous reach, so they'll obviously make lots of money even if they get less per ad, but how much money that will be, how fast income will grow, and how satisfied its customers will be from their ad buys remains to be seen.

[valueInv]

If you read the article, that what they saying - social ads are different from search ads.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

Then I assume Facebook PR got to you too 

[Liberty]

If you read the article, that what they saying - social ads are different from search ads.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

Then I assume Facebook PR got to you too 

You tell me, you seem to know them well

[hellsten]

http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/2012/08/facebook-face-plant-time-to-friend.html

In my first post on Facebook this year, right after Facebook filed its financials (S1) with the SEC, I valued Facebook at $28/share (or $70 billion).
…
With these changes,  my intrinsic value for Facebook with the updated information is $23.94, a drop of just over 10% from my May 2012 estimate.
…
My conclusion is that Facebook is not quite at the threshold of being a buy yet, but it is getting close. I have a limit buy order for the stock at a price of $18.