Wow, when those Facebook guys launch a new service, they really know how to create some buzz. Their latest addition is a service called Beacon.
Quite simply, Beacon is a way for marketers to allow users on their sites to send information to Facebook. Some examples include making a blog post on Typepad and having it automatically fed into Facebook or eBay sellers having their products pushed to their profiles. This is a great way to bring chunks of information into one central location and when paired with Facebook's Social Ads, it's a powerful, integrated marketing tool.
Some big name marketers are using Beacon at this very moment. They include AllPosters.com, Blockbuster, Bluefly.com, CBS Interactive (CBSSports.com & Dotspotter), ExpoTV, Gamefly, Hotwire, Joost, Kiva, Kongregate, LiveJournal, Live Nation, Mercantila, National Basketball Association, NYTimes.com, Overstock.com, (RED), Redlight, SeamlessWeb, Sony Online Entertainment LLC, Sony Pictures, STA Travel, The Knot, TripAdvisor, Travel Ticker, TypePad, viagogo, Vox, Yelp, WeddingChannel.com and Zappos.com.
But, Beacon is causing quite a stir with privacy advocates. One reason is that some sites are using Beacon to send data to Facebook without asking the users if they want to do participate. Beacon looks to see if you have a valid Facebook cookie on your machine and uses that to push content to your account. (Multple people using one machine will undoubtedly have problems with Beacon since it is machine specific.) Charlene Li at Forrester has one such story while making a purchase on Overstock.com. Many other people are talking about Beacon across the blogosphere.
Facebook is only partly to blame. Marketers who use Beacon to exploit their users should be held fully accountable.
Facebook is listening to feedback from its users and committed to evolving Beacon so users have even more control over the actions shared from participating sites with their friends on Facebook…Facebook already has made changes to ensure that no information is shared unless a user receives notifications both on a participating website and on Facebook.
Check out the video as I take you through a real example and be sure to jump down below for more information and some guidelines all marketers should follow.
Here is a diagram of how it works (click for a larger image):
Marketers apply for and install the beacon code on their site
Marketers then set up actions on their site to send information with Beacon
Beacon looks on the user's local machine to see if they have a valid Facebook cookie, if it finds one, it sends the data to Facebook
When users log in, they are presented with a message asking to allow the data to be pulled in
Users can automatically allow all, request to authorize each or deny all on a site-by-site basis
If approved, the message is added to the users timeline (mini-feed) and is presented to their friends on the main landing page
Guidelines for marketers:
Make sure that you are allowing people to opt-in to use Beacon to push information to their profile. This is permission marketing 101.
Allow them to opt in to each action you hook Beacon up to (if there are three places you are using it, that's three opt ins).
Add some explanatory information every time information is sent, as you saw in the video the notification Facebook uses is seen only briefly. Give people a short reminder and allow them to opt out quickly.
Only use beacon for things that will add value to the user on Facebook. Hold off on the mundane things and focus on items that add value, reduce the time spent re-typing it on Facebook or hook into an application the user already has installed.
Points of contention from privacy groups that you need to be aware of:
Some sites are not allowing people to opt in to use Beacon, instead people are surprised by it (See items 1, 2 and 3 above).
The opt-out message shown on the screen is too quick and not prominent enough (you can see this in the video)
The alert on Facebook (after you log in) is hard to see and, again, is phrased as an opt out message instead of opt in.
Each use of Beacon requires users to set preferences and is tedious.
The opportunities with Beacon are immense, but if marketers lose sight of customer privacy it can be a disaster. What do you think about Beacon? Is it too invasive? What should Facebook do to make it work without sacrificing privacy? They have to make some changes to this, but it's anybody's guess as to when that will happen.
Patty -- Thanks for the comment. It should only allay their fears if they approach it correctly. If they keep their users on a pedestal they won't have a problem.
I can see this service going to a required global opt-in on the Facebook side to shortcut some of the legal actions that are in motion.
Thank you for sharing. I am an avid user of Facebook and your post represents a wonderful and useful explanation. Permission-based marketing is a no-brainer. It appears Facebook is stepping up to protect its users. However, users are ultimately responsible for protecting themselves, and now they have information to do so.
Frankly, I am personally not bothered by opt-out; however, as a marketer and a customer-oriented business person, I understand why others are annoyed and would never advise anyone to use the opt-out option instead of the opt-in alternative.
Here's what does bug me, however. I went to Facebook to learn more about Beacon, clicked the sign up button, and the result was that an e-mail option popped up so thay could contact me. I don't want them to contact me. I just want information. Now! Not a sales pitch.
Man, Facebook has now turned a loyal user into one who is annoyed. Why?
I'm curious, Matt. What's in it for the Facebook user? If someone orders a product online, what's the incentive to sharing that info with their friends?
Lewis -- Absolutely opt-in is the way to go. That's the best way to let people participate who want to and "protect" everyone else.
Elaine -- It's all about sharing and creating a more complete profile. If your friends knew what you bought for yourself, it would form a more complete picture of you for them and they'd know what to get you for your birthday.
Lyss -- Yelp is absolutely doing it right. They should ask before you see the Beacon popup. Thanks for sharing!
Matt: Question for you... Is Facebook also using Beacon to serve up ads? I was on REI.com last night looking at something for my boyfriend for Christmas, but I decided not to buy it. Later, I checked my Facebook page, and I saw an ad for the **exact** product from EMS. What was that?
The idea of Beacon seems obvious - show people what their friends are buying as an automated "recommendation" system - but it really assaults the idea of recommendations altogether. There's a big difference between a friend saying, "John, I think you'd like this music" and "Oh look, Sally just got this book, maybe it's interesting." It's a great example of how social networking can make social connections weaker, I think.
I wonder if there's a point where the young digital natives, who are accustomed to sharing a lot of information online, suddenly realize they might like a bit of privacy.
Matt: As always, you do a wonderful job of explaining things.
My problem with Beacon is less to do with the invasion-of-privacy thing (though that's pretty creepy) - it's that there's no news there for me.
Most people have pretty banal shopping habits online.
So it's not going to be news to me that you bought a book at Amazon or that Lewis downloaded a CD at iTunes.
As a result, the information from Beacon becomes that much useless spam, telling me things I already know (my friends buy books at Amazon! Knock me over with a feather!)
Thank you for teaching us how this works. I've been reading post after post on Beacon and pondering ramifications. I am such an infrequent user of Facebook, and being in the B2B space, I have not seen relevance so far... of course, that could change.
Concerning the recent uproar about data collection and Facebook, one knows that companies have been collecting data on people and their buying habits since advertising began and that the data is collected in many different ways including on the Internet, it just happens that the Net is a great place to garner excellent data across many different places and the Net gets a lot of attention and it gets it quickly – so if you’re a big named company and your doing something wrong you are going to get noticed.
While many people are aware that data is being collected on them as they travel from site to site, they don’t know what is accumulated and cross-pollinated, sold and packaged for advertisers. Individuals do not know of the relationships that companies have with one another and how their data is shared. When they find out, they get angry – remember the privacy concerns back in 2000 with DoubleClick? Now just think about what would happen if the public was aware of the relationship that DoubleClick has today with many advertisers – just look at the one they have with Paypal - when you go to the Paypal site and hit the button for the Paypal plus credit card, you actually go to the DoubleClick web site. Now, if you use Paypal, ask yourself what kind of information about you they have – how’s everything sound to you? Not only do they know what you buy but they have your bank account #, credit card #s, address, social security #, phone numbers, etc. etc, etc. - now put that together with DoubleClick and you have a WOW!!!!
The issue here is how companies go about collecting data. The fact of the matter is we live in a world today where you can get all kinds of data on anybody and with the right technology you can harness tremendous capabilities. The question is do you need to be sneaky about it or can you just ask for permission?
I was involved in one of the early personalization/privacy companies (YOUpowered) some years back and we recognized early that people were concerned about their privacy but if you asked for permission to get this data they frequently said yes. What a concept “Ask and you may receive” - just a thought.
Matt, I think Mark Zuckerman's in a platform war. He's fogotten that Facebook is a two-sided platform with two sides to please. One side, advertisers, can't be served to the detriment of the other side. Users need benefits not headaches, Beason's all about the advertisers.
Great piece, Matt. Appreciate the time you put into this.
"Facebook is only partly to blame. Marketers who use Beacon to exploit their users should be held fully accountable."
If there were no Facebook users, then FBook would have no marketing proposition for these advertisers. Sure, advertisers wanted in (and that's OK when done with the customer in mind), but Facebook had to OK this (or brainstorm it in the first place).
Ergo, Facebook had/has the responsibility to its users. It's their users, Matt. So they are fully to blame. Too bad, really. I lauded them for opening their platform which was a very wise move. But opening up your customers to this type of manufactured WOM? Not laudable in the least.
John -- There may be a shift for digital natives, but the generation behind them will pick up with even more openness.
TT -- It's a lot more Fram to deal with that's for sure. Could add value over time, but it'd take a lot of data and some fancy algorithms from Amazon.
Valeria -- B2B relevance may not be there right now, but the community hooks here are important for any network. Think orders vs. purchases.
Courtney -- Great comment. Data is collected and moved around all the time. Most of us don't even think about it. Facebook has the disadvantage of being under a microscope. I imagine if you ask a normal user outside our echo chamber you'll find they aren't too concerned.
Glenn -- I think they're in a tough spot. How do you balance users and advertisers. They both have to co-exist and they're moving quickly to make everybody happy. They seem to have learned and corrected things.
CK -- Ah, I disagree whole-heartedly on that point. Here is why. This idea can have value to users. Not all users, but some of them. It lets you share more points in your life with your network. That's a good thing.
Did they test it and roll it out correctly? No. Do they need to think more about users? Yes.
Facebook built the platform, but the retailers are the ones sending data. If they don't send it, Facebook can't get it. It's two-sided.
But, Beacon is causing quite a stir with privacy advocates. One reason is that some sites are using Beacon to send data to Facebook without asking the users if they want to do participate. Beacon looks to see if you have a valid Facebook cookie on your machine and uses that to push content to your account. (Multple people using one machine will undoubtedly have problems with Beacon since it is machine specific.) Charlene Li at Forrester 
Comments
Thanks for the great explanation and examples on what we should be seeing on facebook and other sites.
I've got friends who are really concerned about how Beacon works - I think this will help allay some of their fears
Patty
Posted by: Patty Hankins | 11.29.07
Matt - You are a gift to mankind. Thank you.
Posted by: Cam Beck | 11.29.07
Patty -- Thanks for the comment. It should only allay their fears if they approach it correctly. If they keep their users on a pedestal they won't have a problem.
I can see this service going to a required global opt-in on the Facebook side to shortcut some of the legal actions that are in motion.
Posted by: Matt Dickman | 11.29.07
Matt,
Thank you for sharing. I am an avid user of Facebook and your post represents a wonderful and useful explanation. Permission-based marketing is a no-brainer. It appears Facebook is stepping up to protect its users. However, users are ultimately responsible for protecting themselves, and now they have information to do so.
Posted by: Lewis Green | 11.29.07
Matt,
Frankly, I am personally not bothered by opt-out; however, as a marketer and a customer-oriented business person, I understand why others are annoyed and would never advise anyone to use the opt-out option instead of the opt-in alternative.
Here's what does bug me, however. I went to Facebook to learn more about Beacon, clicked the sign up button, and the result was that an e-mail option popped up so thay could contact me. I don't want them to contact me. I just want information. Now! Not a sales pitch.
Man, Facebook has now turned a loyal user into one who is annoyed. Why?
Posted by: Lewis Green | 11.29.07
I'm curious, Matt. What's in it for the Facebook user? If someone orders a product online, what's the incentive to sharing that info with their friends?
Posted by: Elaine Fogel | 11.29.07
Facebook "asked" me if I wanted my Yelp reviews published and gave me ample notice if I wanted to opt out.
Posted by: Lyss | 11.29.07
Lewis -- Absolutely opt-in is the way to go. That's the best way to let people participate who want to and "protect" everyone else.
Elaine -- It's all about sharing and creating a more complete profile. If your friends knew what you bought for yourself, it would form a more complete picture of you for them and they'd know what to get you for your birthday.
Lyss -- Yelp is absolutely doing it right. They should ask before you see the Beacon popup. Thanks for sharing!
Posted by: Matt Dickman | 11.29.07
Matt: Question for you... Is Facebook also using Beacon to serve up ads? I was on REI.com last night looking at something for my boyfriend for Christmas, but I decided not to buy it. Later, I checked my Facebook page, and I saw an ad for the **exact** product from EMS. What was that?
Whatever it was, by the way, it was creepy.
Posted by: Ann Handley | 11.29.07
The idea of Beacon seems obvious - show people what their friends are buying as an automated "recommendation" system - but it really assaults the idea of recommendations altogether. There's a big difference between a friend saying, "John, I think you'd like this music" and "Oh look, Sally just got this book, maybe it's interesting." It's a great example of how social networking can make social connections weaker, I think.
I wonder if there's a point where the young digital natives, who are accustomed to sharing a lot of information online, suddenly realize they might like a bit of privacy.
Posted by: John Whiteside | 11.30.07
Beacon is creepy and wrong. So is facebook.
Posted by: Tammy Allen | 11.30.07
Matt: As always, you do a wonderful job of explaining things.
My problem with Beacon is less to do with the invasion-of-privacy thing (though that's pretty creepy) - it's that there's no news there for me.
Most people have pretty banal shopping habits online.
So it's not going to be news to me that you bought a book at Amazon or that Lewis downloaded a CD at iTunes.
As a result, the information from Beacon becomes that much useless spam, telling me things I already know (my friends buy books at Amazon! Knock me over with a feather!)
And that doesn't do anyone any service.
Posted by: Tangerine Toad | 11.30.07
Thank you for teaching us how this works. I've been reading post after post on Beacon and pondering ramifications. I am such an infrequent user of Facebook, and being in the B2B space, I have not seen relevance so far... of course, that could change.
Posted by: Valeria Maltoni | 12.02.07
Concerning the recent uproar about data collection and Facebook, one knows that companies have been collecting data on people and their buying habits since advertising began and that the data is collected in many different ways including on the Internet, it just happens that the Net is a great place to garner excellent data across many different places and the Net gets a lot of attention and it gets it quickly – so if you’re a big named company and your doing something wrong you are going to get noticed.
While many people are aware that data is being collected on them as they travel from site to site, they don’t know what is accumulated and cross-pollinated, sold and packaged for advertisers. Individuals do not know of the relationships that companies have with one another and how their data is shared. When they find out, they get angry – remember the privacy concerns back in 2000 with DoubleClick? Now just think about what would happen if the public was aware of the relationship that DoubleClick has today with many advertisers – just look at the one they have with Paypal - when you go to the Paypal site and hit the button for the Paypal plus credit card, you actually go to the DoubleClick web site. Now, if you use Paypal, ask yourself what kind of information about you they have – how’s everything sound to you? Not only do they know what you buy but they have your bank account #, credit card #s, address, social security #, phone numbers, etc. etc, etc. - now put that together with DoubleClick and you have a WOW!!!!
The issue here is how companies go about collecting data. The fact of the matter is we live in a world today where you can get all kinds of data on anybody and with the right technology you can harness tremendous capabilities. The question is do you need to be sneaky about it or can you just ask for permission?
I was involved in one of the early personalization/privacy companies (YOUpowered) some years back and we recognized early that people were concerned about their privacy but if you asked for permission to get this data they frequently said yes. What a concept “Ask and you may receive” - just a thought.
Posted by: Courtney Benson | 12.03.07
Matt, I think Mark Zuckerman's in a platform war. He's fogotten that Facebook is a two-sided platform with two sides to please. One side, advertisers, can't be served to the detriment of the other side. Users need benefits not headaches, Beason's all about the advertisers.
Posted by: Glenn Gow | 12.03.07
Great piece, Matt. Appreciate the time you put into this.
"Facebook is only partly to blame. Marketers who use Beacon to exploit their users should be held fully accountable."
If there were no Facebook users, then FBook would have no marketing proposition for these advertisers. Sure, advertisers wanted in (and that's OK when done with the customer in mind), but Facebook had to OK this (or brainstorm it in the first place).
Ergo, Facebook had/has the responsibility to its users. It's their users, Matt. So they are fully to blame. Too bad, really. I lauded them for opening their platform which was a very wise move. But opening up your customers to this type of manufactured WOM? Not laudable in the least.
Posted by: CK | 12.04.07
John -- There may be a shift for digital natives, but the generation behind them will pick up with even more openness.
TT -- It's a lot more Fram to deal with that's for sure. Could add value over time, but it'd take a lot of data and some fancy algorithms from Amazon.
Valeria -- B2B relevance may not be there right now, but the community hooks here are important for any network. Think orders vs. purchases.
Courtney -- Great comment. Data is collected and moved around all the time. Most of us don't even think about it. Facebook has the disadvantage of being under a microscope. I imagine if you ask a normal user outside our echo chamber you'll find they aren't too concerned.
Glenn -- I think they're in a tough spot. How do you balance users and advertisers. They both have to co-exist and they're moving quickly to make everybody happy. They seem to have learned and corrected things.
CK -- Ah, I disagree whole-heartedly on that point. Here is why. This idea can have value to users. Not all users, but some of them. It lets you share more points in your life with your network. That's a good thing.
Did they test it and roll it out correctly? No. Do they need to think more about users? Yes.
Facebook built the platform, but the retailers are the ones sending data. If they don't send it, Facebook can't get it. It's two-sided.
Posted by: Matt Dickman | 12.06.07