Techcrunch reports that Facebook is proposing a ban on sponsored updates by users and any other monetisation activities of profiles on the site.¹ However, FB, or rather advertisers using FB, can still utilise user data and photos for their own ads. Even adjusting privacy settings on FB only prevents Facebook itself from using user photos in “social” adverts. Third party apps and other parts of the site can still, in theory, access user photos and information for advertising purposes whether the user approves of it or not.²

But are sponsored adverts that bad? In some respects, yes. As the Techcrunch article points out the ability to talk about products or brands within a social space could be geneuinely useful but its also open to abuse in the form of unwanted spam. However, since FB is happy to give up user data to its advertisers and commercialise the site in as many ways as possible it’s doubtful whether the motives behind this recent proposal are to do with protecting the sanctity of the space. Perhaps it’s better to focus on the fact that the new proposal forbids users from “using their personal profiles for their own commercial gain”. This contrasts strongly with other social media platforms: from Twitter to Youtube to Google’s Blogger users are allowed to monetise their sites and pages in a limited way. So FB seems to be locking down every possible advertising pathway on the site and making sure that users can’t deprive the company, or third-party developers, of any potential advertising revenue.

If that is the thinking behind this new proposal then it implies that FB sees its users as a potential threat to its financial well-being. An odd attitude for a company that’s built its fortune on the back of user generated content, but an understandable one considering FB’s over-valuation³ and ongoing issues with finding an effective business model.⁴

1. Retrieved August 11, 2009 http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/11/facebook-proposes-to-ban-sponsored-status-updates/ [↩]
2. Retrieved August 11, 2009 http://redtape.msnbc.com/2009/07/hey-peter-the-ad-said-hot-singles-are-waiting-for-you-he-might-have-dismissed-the-advertisement-which-appeared-on-his-fa.html [↩]
3. Retrieved August 11, 2009 http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/28/want-some-facebook-stock-at-a-3-billion-valutation-we-know-who-to-call/ [↩]
4. Retrieved August 11, 2009 http://www.reuters.com/article/smallBusinessNews/idUSTRE54L5VV20090522 [↩]

Earlier this year Burger King launched the Whopper Sacrifice on Facebook. Over a 10 day run around 23,000 FB users downloaded and interacted with the application¹. The popularity and innovation of the app garnered plaudits from both the mainstream and digital marketing press as well as from social media commentators and observers.

The response from Web 2.0 pundits was typically guarded: Whilst everyone agreed the campaign was innovative, concerns ranged from doubts about ROI and execution² to musings on how web 2.0 has “changed our ideas of what friendship really means”³. ROI aside, an FB application that causes grown adults to worry about the social fabric has to be doing something right. But what’s the real significance of BK’s Sacrifice? (more…)

1. Retrieved July 8, 2009 http://www.whoppersacrifice.com/ [↩]
2. Retrieved July 8, 2009 //www.ideablue.com/2009/01/09/whopper-sacrifice-social-media-marketing-roi-done-wrong-buzz-done-good/ [↩]
3. Retrieved July 8, 2009 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10211898-36.html [↩]

Using traditional channels, like TV and print, Ad men have attempted to engage consumers with brands for decades. As you can see from the above short¹ Web 2.0 differs from traditional comms in that the flow of information between individuals and organisations is extensively democratised: Communication becomes an interactive, continually evolving process. In traditional forms of marketing comms a consumer is a largely passive receiver of brand messages and is usually the final link in a top-down chain of communication. With digital, the consumer becomes a de facto partner in communication spread and acts as an agent in creating dialogue about brands. Of course due to the networked nature of new media this dialogue occurs whether an organisation wants it to or not, which sometimes results in everything from minor PR gaffes to widespread calls for brand boycotts.
(more…)

1. Retrieved June 28, 2009 Web 2.0 An Intro in 5 minutes by Prof. Wesch at KSU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE [↩]