Comments on: Facebook Beacon, the Pandora’s Box of Marketing

By: Matt Dickman

Matt Dickman — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:52:51 +0000

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.

By: CK

CK — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:03:38 +0000

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.

By: Glenn Gow

Glenn Gow — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:23:44 +0000

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.

By: Courtney Benson

Courtney Benson — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:43:34 +0000

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.

By: Valeria Maltoni

Valeria Maltoni — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:09:33 +0000

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.

By: Tangerine Toad

Tangerine Toad — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:45:51 +0000

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.

By: Tammy Allen

Tammy Allen — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:23:37 +0000

Beacon is creepy and wrong. So is facebook.

By: John Whiteside

John Whiteside — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:14:16 +0000

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.

By: Ann Handley

Ann Handley — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:53:40 +0000

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.

By: Matt Dickman

Matt Dickman — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:21:38 +0000

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!

By: Lyss

Lyss — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:34:12 +0000

Facebook “asked” me if I wanted my Yelp reviews published and gave me ample notice if I wanted to opt out.

By: Elaine Fogel

Elaine Fogel — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:32:39 +0000

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?

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:37:08 +0000

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?

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:51:49 +0000

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.

By: Matt Dickman

Matt Dickman — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:28:38 +0000

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.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:28:18 +0000

Matt – You are a gift to mankind. Thank you.

By: Patty Hankins

Patty Hankins — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:57:31 +0000

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