Gabi Bruckner

All evidence is that the opt-in range is driven in many ways by the content. Opt-in can be universal, but for most it’s likely “partner by partner”.

Gaming in particular offers a serious incentive to use ads to get upgrades rather than pay-for-play. In those cases, 30-40% of users are reported to opt in. Is this a harbinger for the challenges other developers or services will face?

Apple’s IDFA changes are already changing game design and monetization

iOS 14 Opt-in-Rate Is Higher for Mobile Games

As for why, 4% overall seems like a fair proxy for the share of people who just “don’t care”, at least enough to read what they’re agreeing to.

This is why I’m emphasizing 1P data as such a big part of marketer’s future. I just don’t see a viable environment where we all just let whoever wants it have our data. It’s likely to be shared, in pieces, to various parents. The ability of 1P brand to “share” data with another to see how who they know aligns with who they know seems more viable, or at least easier for people to monitor.

Wow 4%? Seems pretty low on a percentage scale, however it has me wondering the why the 4% opted in the first place (and wish there was a way to find out). BTW Kathryn, you had me at SCRATCH AND SNIFF!!!! Did this really happen? Because i would love to see this type of credit card offer!!!!

When I get the prompt, “Do you want to help us make technology work better,” I almost want to laugh. My answer is always no. They’re doing just fine updating technology without the help of my personal information. Where does all this end? I am no longer interested in receiving updates from companies either. I find that if I want to learn about something I can on my own terms.

Before starting this class, I accepted without thinking twice. I’m assuming the 4% are those who just really don’t know or care, but I’d bet they are not intentionally opting in for contribution’s sake, lol. The percentage about gamers makes sense and I find troublesome as games already exploit addiction and now this is taking it to the next step – with the realization that the gamers are such feins they’ll say yeah, sure whatever, just let me in.
And how many parents are aware enough to ensure that their children informed. Ugh. In the meantime:
https://www.theverge.com/22403523/ios-14-5-tracking-consent-app-transparency-how-to

Thanks for the thoughts Kathryn! It’s funny because I’ve started to agree with your mindset about opting-in; I used to opt out of everything and anything, and would unsubscribe with the first annoying email. But since this class and maybe my most recent job position has me much more curious about the marketing and advertising tactics being used by others. To be honest, I may have been one of those people that have opted in because I happen to enjoy targeted ads. Maybe it is because I can always tell an ad from organic feed, that I can appreciate the marketing tactics it took to get, and I doubly appreciate it if it is actually relevant to my life, and triply if it is actually appealing. I’ve clicked on more ads in recent years than ever because the targeting is so good, that I get ads for actual things I need!

Hey Arpana,

I am not going to lie, I love the telehealth option at my doctor’s office. It makes it so much more convenient for me to get a doctor’s appointment since I work a full-time job and I can never get to the office before 5 o’clock. When I had a sore throat this one time, I had a televisit, and I could actually pout my camera up to my mouth and they could see that my tonsils were inflamed and called me in medicine, and I could do this appointment on my lunch break. loT devices are going to make it a huge introduction to the telehealth world, and I am all for it. I do not agree with you on the HIPPA compliances because you are still talking to your doctor, its not like you are speaking to some stranger on the street. You still have that doctor, patient confidentiality aspect. I think that especially in a world of COVID these AI technologies will have a beneficial impact on our health systems.

Great Post!

My hot take is that this is a “good thing”.

The issue to me is that the echo chambers were allowed to form in the main platforms. “Free speech” applies primarily to public platforms, as I understand it. Commercial entities are freer to regulate what they deem acceptable and no one has a “right” to access a commercial platform (as I see it).

The danger as I saw with content on the “main” platforms is how easy it leaked (or was optimized) into random people’s streams because they were (however distantly) associated with people who found it “relevant”.

The challenge with moderating any content is that users are smart and will adapt their language to parallel norms or similar “code” if pressured with moderation.

By splintering the network, in many ways it could dilute the effect of the content. Niche message boards, etc. always existed, but they weren’t directly connected to the hives of all our other conversations. This naturally limited their growth as discoverability and accessibility were more cumbersome.

Facebook is “powerful” because of its scale. Gab, GETTR, TRUTH or whatever the liberal/progressive equivalent might be will never rival Facebook in size simply because they’re intentionally designed to appeal to a niche population and (more than likely) the nature of the conversations will deter many from joining. This is, of course, ignoring the factionalism that will no doubt form between audiences on similar platforms (Gab vs. GETTR vs. TRUTH, etc.).. You could be on all platforms, but outside journalists, celebrities and super users, most people don’t seem to have the energy or desire to nurture infinite accounts.

If the conversation moves off Twitter or Facebook and becomes “contained” on a niche platform, on any topic, do you agree the effect could be diluted?

Of course, such a network needs to exist and scale first. In our day and age, that’s no sure thing as fates can change quickly (see Parler). An app doesn’t exist on its own and needs many business partners to host and sustain it. In the case of TRUTH, the collaborative nature of the Internet may well present obstacles they did not anticipate.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/22/22740354/trump-truth-social-network-spac-mastodon-license-software-freedom-conservancy

I share your concerns that niche social media platforms like TRUTH could exacerbate the echo chamber problem, but at the same time, are the people who join fringe channels open to hearing the other side anyway? I think Greg makes a great point that there are limits to how impactful a non-major social platform can be.
I also don’t think TRUTH is likely to take off. Trump’s blog lasted 29 days, and the reasons given were that it wasn’t getting as many views as Trump’s team had hoped (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/02/donald-trump-blog-fail-491667)… Even though a social channel is more likely to drive engagement, is it really going to be enough to satisfy egos, advertisers, business partners, etc.? I suppose whether TRUTH succeeds or fails depends on what its intended goal is, but if it’s to influence others, isolating your voices on a contained platform is a questionable way of doing that.

Great post Sean! I have actually been looking into this new social media platform for awhile now. I just read an article the other day saying that this social media platform was actually going to be put on hold. Something that really caught my eye when reading your post is the part about pre-ordering. Social media platforms are free so I wonder if he is going to be charging to be on this platform?

I don’t blame him for starting his own platform. Social media was mainly created to give people a place to talk and share their opinions but now “Cancel Culture” has become a thing and these large platforms think they can ban people from their platforms. I don’t think it is right at all. Everyone has an opinion, you can agree or disagree but that doesn’t give you the right to take someone off a social platform.

I am interested to see how this new platform shakes up the other top dogs in social media platforms.

The site looks almost like a Twitter clone: A user can post Truths, like tweets, or Re-Truths, aka retweets. There’s also a news feed, called the Truth Feed, a notification system so users can know “who’s interacting with your TRUTH’s,” the social network’s App Store profile states. However, the site’s technical woes and uninspired design might not deter new users because Trump isn’t trying to win over the market by creating a unique media experience. Whether his base finds the site to be a tolerable experience remains an open question.

Social media outlets to me is all about intent. What are their intentions? Is their intentions really to keep in impartial or to try to suppress the popular or least popular viewpoint?

Facebook now shows you what you want to see in a bubble of information which can grow perception bias’s. What scary algorithmic back-end will TRUTH develop to keep what you want to see on it? I find it hard to believe the intent of TRUTH will be to keep progressive viewpoints when the audience will be geared for more conservative or even “Trumper” perspectives.

I have heard about this and it is definitely an interesting concept. To echo what some already said, social media is for everyone to share opinions and exchange ideas whether they agree/disagree with those ideas. However, some might feel better posting when they are among a group of like minded people. This is where an app like this can be beneficial. To Dan’s point, it will be interesting to see if this will be another Facebook where the algorithms are made to be divisive.

In the future, this same concept may come to fruition for other audiences. For example, this app essentially serves as an exclusive group or messaging board. Moving forward, there may be something similar for people who solely follow homeopathic medicine or have a vegan lifestyle among other niche groups. It will be interesting to see what will set the app apart from already existing sites, groups and boards for niche topics.

I think this merger would make total senses for PayPal. Currently, they have to build their own user base, and have to compete with apps like Venmo in that space. Or, it is beholden to websites offering it as a payment option AND a user selecting it over other payment options. This would provide PayPal with a captive dedicated audience that it can use to feed its core businesses.

Something I find interesting is the timing. The government has started looking at the big companies and if they need to diverge some of the assets. This will hang over the governments decision to approve this. If it does get approved, it runs the risk of falling into the the breakup. Also, PayPal could miss out on the fire sell that will result if the big companies are broken up. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I had the same chain of reactions to this news. At first I was like what?? but it does make sense given how Pinterest could help PayPal capture more e-commerce growth… though $45 billion is quite the price tag. Apparently Microsoft “only” paid $26 billion for LinkedIn back in 2016.
Anyway, the potential acquisition got called off today: https://www.reuters.com/technology/paypal-says-is-not-pursuing-acquisition-pinterest-2021-10-25/
… I wonder if another company will try to acquire Pinterest in the future, but I’m having a hard time thinking of whom that might be.

I was not aware that PayPal is trying to buy Pinterest! This is interesting. I think it is a great idea but at the same time, not the best idea. Yes, Pinterest’s revenue has increased since the pandemic began but before that it was seeing a decrease in users. Now that the pandemic is hopefully coming to an end, will Pinterest users begin to fall again? The process of how PayPal will be integrated is a great idea though and I can really see it being successful!

Great write-up, Mohamad. Pinterest seems to of found the optimal time to sell off its company. Very impressive maneuvering by both companies. I think Pinterest can be expected to teeter off a bit after such explosive earnings. this concept of PayPal integrating with a platform that literally captures what people want is a great idea from the thinkers at PayPal.

The Pinterest deal would’ve been the biggest acquisition of a social media company at the reported price. One of the largest tech deals would move Paypal closer to its ambitions of becoming a “super app.” It would have also allowed PayPal to capture more e-commerce growth. More shoppers increasingly buy items they see on social media, often following “influencers” on Instagram, TikTok, and even Pinterest. In addition, PayPal plans to add a bevy of new services to its revamped app, including high-yield savings accounts, check-cashing services, and stock-investing capabilities.

This is definitely true! It doesn’t matter that fewer people are watching shows together. People can watch TV on their own schedule and discuss it with their friends later or on social media. Because of this, I would argue that the success/failure of a show is even more reliant on word-of-mouth advertising than ever before. Think of the wild success of Squid Game (https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/netflix-s-squid-game-sensation-here-s-why-it-s-n1280646). So many people were talking about the show online that it spurred a global sensation. Had the show aired on tradional network television, it would have relied on compelling ads to convince viewers to tune in. Now, the amount of online buzz compels people to give it a watch.

I know I personally usually let the Internet review a new show for me before I give it a watch. What about you?

10 years ago (I know I’m dating myself again), I had the epiphany that we were doing TV buying wrong.

I was lucky to be at a company that let me lean into it, and so I devised an in-house tool that let us equate digital impressions for services like YouTube and Hulu into their traditional TV equivalent (rating points).

I won’t bore you on the details, but it got the attention of Hulu and I was able to work with their sales team to scale up my approach to better align their inventory with a traditional TV buyer mentality.

A decade later, the tool has long since been retired, but the philosophy has never been stronger. How do you define “TV”?

We internally no longer use “TV” as a tactic. It’s all variations on video and we’ve developed a nomenclature of equivalence to blend the experiences we know vs. the ones that emerge.

The easy way of thinking is that services like Hulu are “Primetime” just as most their content would be on-air. YouTube and the ‘gram equate to “Daytime”, less because of the quality of programming than the quality of “attention” (i.e. you watch it when you unexpectedly have time to burn; note: this is Primetime for younger target audiences). And so on…

The challenge to “TV” then isn’t that we don’t recognize the value of video content and its increasing power, but that so much is ad-supported and that model is under incredible strain.

Consumers prefer ad-free experiences, but how much can they really afford? Where ads do exist, digital impressions are almost always sold at a discount relative to their on-air equivalents.

And then, the major elephant: its considerably more work for a station / network to sell individual impressions than blocks of airtime. When an 30 min episode aired back in the day, around 11 minutes was reserved for ads. That’s ~22 advertisers if you stick to :30 spots. Now, given how many ways you can slice and dice an audience, you could have hundreds or even thousands of advertisers existing in that same audience (it’s not typically that high, but you see how it could be via our convo on programmatic last week).

Boiling all of this, how is it that “TV” has never been more popular and yet, the business model is still under considerable strain?

Great tieback to books. It’s easy to forget how many different ways content can be consumed and that just because an experience is different, doesn’t mean the “old way” is preferred.

Given the sheer volume of content available and the accessibility, is it even reasonable to expect co-watching at scale? It was certainly more viable in the days of the “Big 3” networks, but TV audiences have been dwindling for years as options for entertainment continue to expand.

On paper, the rationale they’re communicating is that the new name will represent their values, specifically their shift to creating an entire metaverse (think 2nd Life or Roblox) where people can engage and interact in entirely immersive ways. A rebrand this big doesn’t happen overnight, so I’m inclined to believe it’s aspirational even if I also believe the efforts were accelerated give the latest publicity.

https://www.economist.com/business/facebooks-rumoured-name-change-reflects-its-ambitions-and-its-weakness-1/21805755

Whether it’s effective? As I said on the lecture, I don’t think most people think, let alone say, Alphabet when they think about technology leaders (another A! Our acronyms are doomed.)

That being said, Google’s rebrand was more about bringing their disparate parts under a common identity. Calling everything Google detracts from their non-search ventures.

That’s kind of what seems to be happening in practice here, but not how it’s being positioned by the media. Facebook will still be Facebook (or “the Facebook”, if you’re of a certain age). It’s the parent company that’s changing. Facebook now will be “Facebook, a [rebrand] company” just as Instagram is currently “Instagram. a Facebook company (though we try really hard to obscure that when we can because we secretly know Facebook is uncool and where your mom hangs out and Instagram is not that and you should totally spend all your time here you cool kids!).

As another example, who here knows what Altria does?

Phillip Morris might be a more familiar name and I can argue their rebrand to Altria effectively did reset their public image. But that is as much because so many people had already moved away from their products and/or knew them under their trade names (Marlboro, etc.).

Branding is convoluted. Yes, it needs to convey your values. It will never truly do more than represent those values. I find it extremely unlikely people will wake up later this month and suddenly be like “what is this new social network I am part of that mysteriously did not exist yesterday and now has all of my info pre-loaded?”.

Maybe if Facebook deprecates their current products and launches something new, it will take a lot of time. Just like Altria keeps looking for new ways to sell tobacco without calling them cigarettes.

I am still shocked Facebook is rebranding. They want to be known for the metaverse, being that they believe it is our future, even though it currently doesn’t exist. Big companies like Facebook and Microsoft have been investing heavily in the AR/VR world. If they can successfully shift gears more so away from social media, I think the rebrand will be worthwhile. As of right now, Facebook, the logo, the design, the platform, are known. Without context users know Facebook, especially because it has the widest range of generations on it. I just don’t think something so known will be able to change. It involves compliance from user to adapt to the rebrand. When I-HOP had their promotion of I-HOB, they wanted their consumers to start calling it that too, but that did not happen.

I am not shocked they are rebranding, but I don’t think it will make much of a difference in the long run. Facebook is trying out outrun the negative stereotypes that are associated with it, but people still continue to use the platform as well as Instagram. I think people will continue to call it Facebook, continue to use it, and they won’t care about the rest.

I dislike change!!! And hate that Facebook is changing their name -and wonder how long people will continue to call Facebook by its original name. I think this is a ploy for Mark Zuckerberg to either save his reputation and detach himself from negative press, or have more control over the platform. This reminds me of when I worked as a banker for Wachovia, which merged into Wells Fargo, and for two years customers called the bank Wachovia. It was such a hard transition.

Reading your post got me thinking about the line between protecting content and censoring it. As a Chinese based company, TikTok is preprogramed to over censor content. The fact that they banded someone that has same sex content does not surprise me at all. This is not just a TikTok conversation. Every social media company is trying to find that fine line. I think the answer gets back to our conversation about a company’s social media policy. Social media companies should define what is and is not allowed on there platforms, universally enforce it, and then make it a continues process to review and update the policy. These are not new problems, they are just new in the number of and speed the information can reach people.

I feel like everyday I hear about content creators and influencers are having their content banned or having their profile restricted. I’m not on Tik Tok so I’m not fully aware of the issues creators are having but I have been seeing this issue with content creators I follow on Instagram. Some of the reason they have been restricted seemed really unnecessary and didn’t seem to go against the Instagram guidelines. It’s really unfair to those who like Kevin James Thornton, have poured so much into creating a thriving community on these platforms only to have them “start again”. I wonder if TikTok is willing to amend some of their guidelines around their moderation system in order to protect their creators since they help to bring so many eyes to the platform.

OUTSTANDING post and comments here, all! Sean, absolutely agree with your point that “these are not new problems, they are just new in the number of and speed the information can reach people.”

Does it ultimately come down to accountability? To whom are social media companies accountable for establishing clear values and expectations, and then upholding them? What happens if they aren’t accountable or consistent in doing so? At what point is social media considered a utility that could be regulated? Lots to consider…

This is unbelievable to me. Kathryn’s post and your comment just sent me down a wormhole of reading articles about TikTok’s haphazard censorship. I still don’t understand how having the word “nazi” in your bio wouldn’t automatically get you banned… what alternative context is there? Based on my minimal understanding of algorithms, I can maybeee see how TikTok had to make some tweaks around BLM to ensure people who should be blocked were and vice versa (though apparently it’s still an issue: https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-09-16/fed-up-with-tiktok-black-users-are-moving-on)
But when TikTok programmers came together to discuss what should be censored (if that’s how it’s done), how was censoring the word nazi (or white supremacy) not an easy box to check, especially when used in a bio? Maybe they’ve figured that out by now… Not sure because I’m not on TikTok, and I’d hope the algorithm would know me better than to show that content but YIKES.

Katheryn, I totally agree with your comment on the possibility that a platform could lose its audience or advertisers because of the overzealous banning of creators. Do you think this is because of the origin of this social app? Does Tick Tok actually have defined values that makes it different from any other social platform that also has trolls string up trouble?

Also, I had no idea that there were trolls on Tick Tok just trying to instigate trouble in order to get someone banned. What a disheartening thought for someone to hate on another so much for some reason, they would go to lengths to make them look bad, and eventually banned.

A year or two ago, users on Tiktok claimed it had all of the style and grace of Instagram, but without the trolling. They touted that they had an inclusive environment that didn’t have the vitriol that normal social media platforms have. In the past few months though, it is becoming clear that this welcoming attitude when you arrive is a façade that can sometimes conceal a lot of hate. I recently watched a TikTok about a woman who did a social experiment on Tiktok, where she followed and liked anti-trans users and videos, and found that the platform started to recommend other types of hate videos like racist or anti-Semitist videos. Though the suggestion algorithm can be powerful, it can also be dangerous. Thanks Kathryn for the share!

I am surprised at the spike in the Silent Generation’s use of facebook. I think it is a combination of the population getting smaller, so the % goes up, and more wanting to see what their grandkids are doing. I also wonder if there is an accessibility aspect to it. Living alone the older generation my not have a computer, or room in a house that has 40 years of stuff in every corner. However, when they move into an assisted living community they down size and find room for a computer. Maybe the community even has a computer center that improves access. Regardless of the reason, this demographic seems like an excellent market that has been targeted for years by traditional media and now digital markets can start getting into the game.

I think this is great Steve!

As a consumer I personally value my privacy but more so the ability to have Advertising that is geared towards my needs and wants. Unlike many people I actually enjoy seeing Ads I am interested in, I have made many purchases through social media due to this and I want to be able to provide the same experience to my users. I am very intrigued by the idea of bringing Facebook and Instagram together to create a more intertwined and seamless experience for the user. I think change is always good if not to improve a process then to gather data and learn from any mistakes that may occur along the way. I am looking forward to see what other changes happened in the future!

Steve, your post reminded me of our guest speaker, Cindy’s, advice: Do, Learn, Do! New features present new opportunities to test and learn. And to your question: It certainly can feel overwhelming. Bringing it back to the strategy, audience and desired outcome is usually a good way to assess: Is it worth testing this one out?

As someone that doesn’t use Facebook, I think that the new features are huge! Automation and integrating features from Instagram should help SMBs better communicate with audiences like myself.

The company is testing the option for Instagram creators to have their Reels recommended on Facebook. One thing FB added is a list of tips about improving ads’ performance.
– Give time to the analysis: waiting 72 hours before evaluating performance can help ensure an accurate picture for optimization purposes
– Analyze the campaign and not the creative: analyze reporting at the campaign level rather than focusing on just one factor
– Set up the Conversions API: The API connects with other data sources to measure user actions across marketing funnels, and it can even provide insights into website conversions
– Consider all available tools: Consider and take advantage of all tools available to you – on and off FB
– Keep on testing: Testing new bidding, format, and audience strategies will help you identify what is working to improve your performance

This is interesting. This list does seem pretty outdated. You talked about Google+ which is essentially dead for the individual user. I didn’t even know ESPN allowed comments on their site. TikTok and Reddit should be there on video sites and forums. I honestly didn’t even know there was this many social media sites. As a company, it must be difficult to include all of these sites to its Code of Conduct. I wonder how they discover these sites; is it by word of mouth by employees or do they just find it online?

Interesting post Kathryn! First, I’ll say kudos to your company for its thoroughness – wow. I think it’s good they thought about this broadly, but it does make it a bit unrealistic to actually be able to sift through all of it and understand the policies set forth. Second, I imagine whoever came up with this list, tried to do so in a way that addressed “social media” in its most broad and basic form: a digital platform where people socialize and converse. At least, that’s the only way I can make sense of it in my brain. Given Chase is such a huge company, I imagine they just wanted to cover ALL the bases, even if it is silly to think about spreading company secrets through Farmville.

Lol at Farmville…

I agree, this is an extensive list and I think it’s more about them having all their bases covered. Agree with Mo about Reddit and TikTok..those are widely popular! Also many people ask about company culture on Reddit and that can definitely be a huge platform to unleash some dirt. Is this included in the recent FAQ? This raises the question of how often should a company update their Code of Conduct and the documents tied to it? Should they release every time there is a new platform? What if the platform is hugely popular at first then burns out and isn’t used ever again? It would definitely be interesting to see the actual factors that determine what is included

Wow Kathryn, this is quite intense of a list hahaha. But also, I can understand the reason why your company would want to cover as much bases as possible in the world of social media. Even though head-on we think of the holy trinity that you mentioned, all the websites mentioned in the list give some sort of social aspect. So while Facebook is inherently social, it makes sense that our Yelp reviews would be considered a social activity as well.

Kathryn, makes me wonder if the policy would benefit from an “includes, but not limited to….” introduction to this list along with a general definition of “social media.” You’re right–platforms come and go at such a rapid pace, it can feel nearly impossible to keep up with.