[HN Gopher] Facebook buying ads for Messenger to be top result w...
___________________________________________________________________
Facebook buying ads for Messenger to be top result when you search
for 'Signal'
Author : ffpip
Score : 186 points
Date : 2021-01-10 20:29 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| leoplct wrote:
| I wonder why not using a chat based on BitTorrent protocol?
| christiansakai wrote:
| We are seeing the end of life of Facebook. After Apple, now this.
| This company is gasping for life.
| rajman187 wrote:
| Interestingly I see an ad for Tiktok when I search for WhatsApp
| annadane wrote:
| Fuck you, Facebook.
|
| Edit: Don't flag me. Fuck you too. It's a perfectly legitimate
| comment.
| aluminussoma wrote:
| I click on the ads of products I dislike so that the company gets
| charged for the ad. If you wanted to inflict the maximum damage,
| then click on the ad and install the app. Uninstall it later. I
| think the ad gets charged more as a "conversion".
| jmholla wrote:
| Sadly with Facebook,you can't be sure they won't install a
| backdoor application that will reinstall it after you uninstall
| it. That may just be some phones with Facebook and Messenger
| preloaded though.
| mcintyre1994 wrote:
| Yes you can be sure that they're not doing that on iOS.
| drops wrote:
| If it's a company as big as Facebook, I think those charges are
| drops in the ocean of their entire revenue, so you waste more
| of your time and nerves on doing that than the money they lose.
| endymi0n wrote:
| While you're technically correct, you're also making a
| conversion right there, which increases your ad relevancy score
| on most auction driven platforms including Google and --
| ironically -- Facebook, which in turn leads to this ad actually
| getting _cheaper_ to run for the advertiser on other customers
| coming after you.
|
| I'm not in deep enough to tell you whether that's a net loss or
| benefit, but it's probably close enough to zero...
| fossuser wrote:
| This is incredibly obnoxious and Apple should ban it.
|
| I've seen it for any popular app - at best it's a tax apple is
| charging apps to protect themselves by buying ad slots for their
| own name.
|
| At worst it's an attack on old people.
|
| Whenever I see it I think less of the company trying to
| manipulate less technical users.
| monokh wrote:
| This practice is called "Brand bidding" and is actually extremely
| common among competitors. Occasionally companies will mutually
| agree to not participate.
|
| It's actually surprising why it's not perceived to be more
| hostile.
| giarc wrote:
| Ya this is kind of a non-story. They were probably bidding on
| 'Signal' prior to this current set of events anyways. And since
| Signal doesn't appear to be bidding on it's own name, Facebook
| is probably paying very little for that top spot.
| srfvtgb wrote:
| I don't know if this is still the case, but for a while the
| easiest way to get the best deal from Dominoes was to search
| Google for Pizza Hut with your adblocker turned off.
| jonas21 wrote:
| It's possible that Facebook isn't intentionally targeting Signal.
|
| When buying App Store ads, the default is to use a "broad match"
| for the keywords you enter -- i.e. Apple automatically decides
| what keywords are similar to the keywords you selected and runs
| your ads against those as well.
|
| It's pretty annoying because there's no way to switch the default
| -- you have to remember to put your keywords in brackets to
| disable it -- but probably great for Apple's revenue.
| MKais wrote:
| Whatsapp displays 404 not found when I send a link to Signal
| https://www.dropbox.com/s/0t5venwty2oe2re/Screenshot%202021-...
| stabbles wrote:
| can't reproduce
| godelski wrote:
| For what it is worth, I cannot reproduce
| srfvtgb wrote:
| Seems like a pretty blatant antiturst violation if this is
| happening consistently.
| ve55 wrote:
| It would be weird that they'd make it display a 404 though.
| It's possible Signal could be returning that when they see FB
| perform a request to them for some reason (e.g. want to make
| sure no metadata leaks to FB).
| MikusR wrote:
| They are a private service and can do whatever they want.
| edit: I am just repeating the narrative I have seen on HN the
| last couple of days.
| mattnewton wrote:
| Assuming you are referring to the current wave of private
| censorship in the wake of the storming of the US capitol, I
| think it's a false equivalence.
|
| Here people are arguing this looks like monopolistic
| behavior (that the law attempts to make illegal); and there
| people were arguing for allowing de-platforming (that the
| law could be read as encouraging to limit the liability of
| the platform). This analogy erases the nuance that might
| make one desirable to society and the other undesirable.
| newbie578 wrote:
| Well played. It is their platform, I don't see a problem in
| what they are doing. If someone doesn't like it, then use a
| different one.. (that is the narrative, right?)
| quadrangle wrote:
| Your comment could be read as suggesting that private
| companies are above the law.
|
| I assume you mean just "this particular sort of anti-
| competitive behavior is legal because it's all within their
| private service".
| godelski wrote:
| More importantly it would mean the link previews aren't
| e2ee. ,, _BUT_ '' I cannot reproduce the error.
| folli wrote:
| Copying my comment from another thread:
|
| I'm getting slightly fatigued with this point of view ("X
| is a private company and can do what it wants").
|
| If a company reaches a certain size and has a quasi-
| monopolistic position so that other people or companies
| depend on it, it starts to have some degree of
| responsibility towards society that's beyond value
| maximization for shareholders.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Unfortunately they operate in the US so they can't
|
| https://youtu.be/gRelVFm7iJE
| fsflover wrote:
| Not if they are a monopoly.
| firloop wrote:
| Haven't tried reproducing, but it's possible they just "don't
| support" this.
|
| Facebook also "doesn't support" these sorts of links (at least
| to Telegram, Snapchat, others) on Instagram:
| https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/03/instagram-starts-blocking-...
| JMTQp8lwXL wrote:
| App linking (URLs that open apps) doesn't work in Messenger.
| You have to press-and-hold the link, tap "Open in Safari", and
| then safari will redirect to the app. Terrible UX.
| ericmay wrote:
| I find this to be a bit strange from a marketing perspective and
| the cost to run this campaign has to be non-trivial. If someone
| searches for Signal, what is the likelihood they don't already
| know what Facebook Messenger is? What is this ad supposed to
| convince someone of? Like you see the ad after searching for
| Signal and go "oh I have Facebook Messenger"?
|
| I guess maybe there might be some who don't know about Facebook
| Messenger and so they heard about this new Signal app and now
| they see a new chat app that works with Facebook.
|
| I'm sure there's analytics and testing behind the decision to
| support it.
| Klonoar wrote:
| FWIW, I can tell you my father goes with whatever's in the ad
| 99% of the time. It's led to some... interesting... situations
| to fix.
|
| But there are absolutely people like this, and FB makes money
| off of them in droves.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| Users who click on ads are probably the best users to have.
| g_p wrote:
| I wonder if there's automated ad purchasing going on here,
| bidding against the keywords of the top app names in relevant
| categories?
|
| It seems that Facebook bidding on Signal keywords is unlikely
| to gain them much, as those searching for signal right now are
| very likely going there expressly to escape from Facebook, and
| are searching for a specific brand name already.
| JMTQp8lwXL wrote:
| Facebook has the cash to burn, even if it's a less-than-stellar
| marketing decision. My guess is this is a short-lived
| advertising campaign to protect the moat during this heated
| moment.
| bigiain wrote:
| Deep down, I hope this has nothing to do with a "marketing
| decision", and is just a hail-mark "Fuck, look at all the
| people fleeing WhatsApp since we announced the privacy
| changes? We have to do _something!_ What're we gonna tell
| Zuck?".
|
| (Sadly, in spite of the noise in my personal social bubble, I
| suspect the number of users departing WhatsApp over that is
| so small it's completely indiscernible from regular churn...)
| marcinzm wrote:
| Cynically I'm guessing it's for potential new users who have
| heard of Signal vaguely and inducing brand confusion. "Oh,
| Signal is part of Facebook Messenger, cool, already have that."
| throwii wrote:
| New-old word: brand confusion
| hnick wrote:
| I was curious about this from a trademark angle (it seems
| against the spirit of the law if not the letter) and
| apparently it's generally permitted to show ads based on a
| brand keyword as long as the ad itself does not contain any
| trademarked terms or images. I don't personally agree with
| that but it supposedly been tested in a few courts.
| dbrgn wrote:
| It's common practice in Google Adwords to book your
| competitors' keywords.
|
| It's also common to book political ads in newspapers that
| will be placed next to articles discussing that topic.
|
| Whoever pays most, gets that screen/paper space.
| yread wrote:
| It does make Signal's own ads more expensive.
|
| I miss the old Google layout where it was crystal clear what is
| an ad. Nowadays, you can't even blame normal people that they
| don't notice the tiny "Ad"
| mcintyre1994 wrote:
| Do Signal buy ads against their own name in the App Store
| though? Despite adding Google-like search ads, Apple haven't
| broken search and they're always the first organic result for
| their name, so I don't see why they would want to.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| What's _really_ annoying is searching for an app and it
| shows up in the search suggestions but _doesn't exist_. For
| example, search "Red Robin" in the App Store and there's a
| suggestion for it. But what shows up... Robinhood (with a
| DoorDash ad above it).
| dave_sid wrote:
| Has anyone recently tried searching for 'Signal' to check this? I
| don't see any Facebook Messenger ads personally. Think this is a
| bit of marketing from Signal.
| adonese wrote:
| This actually reminds me of Tim Sweeney's tweets regarding stores
| policies[1].
|
| [1]:
| https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/101985252700794470...
| saagarjha wrote:
| App Store Ads are genuinely awful. I have yet to find any that
| have been anything but spam apps or companies buying their
| competitor's keywords. They quite definitely make the App Store
| worse.
| marcinzm wrote:
| I'm guessing that for the app store team everything except the
| ad revenue is in essence a cost center. The company makes money
| from it but it's not tied back to the app store team or not
| tied back directly enough. Ad revenue however is tied back
| directly. So they optimize the KPI they are measured on.
| bigiain wrote:
| > everything except the ad revenue is in essence a cost
| center
|
| Really?
|
| Seems a very strange thing to think, particularly in a thread
| mentioning Epic games, who've chosen to allow Fortnite to be
| delisted from the app store in protest over the 30%
| commission the store takes on their sales...
|
| My suspicion is that ad revenue in Apple's app store is
| insignificant compared to revenue from paid app commissions.
| (I do have nothing except gut feel and some probably obly
| vaguely informed opinion to base that on...)
| Jakobeha wrote:
| "Ah, yes. I'm looking for a peer-to-peer, secure messaging
| system. What's this, Facebook Messenger? Maybe I'll try that
| instead."
|
| In all seriousness though, this kind of advertising should not be
| beneficial to Facebook. You're telling a group of people biased
| not to buy your product, to buy your product. There's obviously
| some other reason.
| laurent92 wrote:
| When I'm annoyed with an ad, I love clicking on it, especially
| since a click can cost from $.5 to $12. Also, upon clicking,
| they build a profile of me based on products I don't like, so
| all the better.
|
| Tough for the advertiser, but maximizing advertiser
| dissatisfaction is also in my interest (at least since I don't
| advertise anymore - after an important realization that I had
| poured money into it for very few actual new customers).
| the_pwner224 wrote:
| https://adnauseam.io/
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Could use of this be detected by the ad networks and get
| filtered out?
| bigiain wrote:
| It _could_...
|
| But the ad networks get paid for those clicks, so while
| businesses keep buying ads from a known[1] mostly
| fraudulent industry, they will not.
|
| 1: "Uber discovered they'd been defrauded out of 2/3 of
| their ad spend" --
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25623858
| renewiltord wrote:
| It's usually detected by anti-click-fraud stuff (since
| it's the same UA, cookies, and IP that's mass whacking
| ads, it's the easy case). However, the users of the tool
| occasionally intend to punish the publishers (people who
| put these ads on their sites) which does happen for some
| low volume publishers - like your buddy's blog with
| AdSense and stuff.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Set it further towards the "rarely" setting, and this is
| less likely.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| This sounds like cutting off the nose to spite the face.
| Sure, you _may_ be harming the advertisers, but you are
| directly reinforcing the ecosystem that creates those
| annoying ads in the first place by telling them you like
| those ads.
|
| I hate ads too, but let's not pretend like this childish
| rebellion is actually self-serving. It's like me saying I'm
| upset with politics so I'll show the world by not voting.
| oever wrote:
| That $.5 to $12 goes to big tech. That's only a win in the
| case of very vile advertisers.
| viraptor wrote:
| Given the current mass (for some values of "mass") migration,
| there will be some people who have very low tech knowledge but
| read enough about migrating to signal and WhatsApp being bad,
| that they'll search for "Signal" and will try the first
| communicator that comes up. Not sure if they will be fooled for
| long, but still... People are fooled by basic spam and they
| will be fooled by this.
| throwii wrote:
| People who can figure this out are not the target.
| gotem wrote:
| Jesus no one here seems to understand how ad targeting or bidding
| works.
| st1x7 wrote:
| This is kind of embarassing. Do you guys think that the people at
| Facebook who make these decisions realise how pathetic it looks
| from the outside? Or are they somehow justifying it in their own
| heads?
| minhazm wrote:
| I would assume they've been doing this for a long time. Lots of
| companies do stuff like this. If you're against this then you
| have to be against basically all search ads. You can go search
| for Venmo or Cash App now and you'll see ads for some other
| banking products.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| It definitely seems like a policy that should be reexamined. If
| you're a newcomer to a market and a big entrenched player buys
| up all of the search ads with your product's name, how can you
| hope to be discovered via SEO?
| minhazm wrote:
| Ads are pretty clearly highlighted as such at the top. If
| your SEO is good then you will still be at the top, just
| below the ads.
|
| I do agree that a lot of these companies do have the ability
| to use advertising to crush their competition, but I'm not
| sure what the solution is to that.
| suyash wrote:
| lol that's funny..it will make people like me more inclined to
| install Signal than every before.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I don't think they are targeting users who have ideological
| stance. But the average people searching for the new thing they
| hear about...
| CitizenHeat wrote:
| "If your only tool is a hammer, then every problem is a nail."
| dylan604 wrote:
| This is one of the major reasons that I don't believe search ads
| are worth anything for any but the largest of players. There will
| always be someone with a larger check book, especially if you are
| just starting and bootstrapping your thing. The playing field is
| always tilted in the direction of the larger player
| DeafSquid wrote:
| Well, let's all search for Signal and waste Facebook's ad money
| throwaway7281 wrote:
| It's funny, if it weren't that sneaky and scuzzy and very much in
| line with what FB excels at: web scale deceit.
| iphorde wrote:
| The FBI, Google, Facebook, ... are working with congress to
| change Signal, and other apps. They want a backdoor.
|
| See Christopher Wray's testimony in Jan 2020. I'm sure this will
| be accelerated.
| oliwarner wrote:
| Our great-grandchildren are going to look back on history and
| struggle to understand why we used a search engines that
| intentionally accept bribes to poison their SERPs.
|
| I hope we can get this right one day. Allowing trademark
| squatting helps nobody but scammers (and search engines).
| Grimm1 wrote:
| Hear hear.
| chrischen wrote:
| As a relatively small business with no clout we've had to deal
| with fly-by-night operations violating our trademark with
| Google ads (basically randoms running ads that look like they
| are from US when people search our web domain) and Google not
| doing anything because we didn't register the trademark. Of
| course Google won't do anything--it'd hurt their bottom line!
| marcinzm wrote:
| As I understand it, if you didn't register the trademark then
| it's not your trademark legally except as a defense against
| lawsuits. So Google seems to have followed the law. Better
| than them becoming some sort of extra-legal arbitrator of
| quasi-trademarks.
| mehrdadn wrote:
| It seems difficult to do this in general when so many search
| terms can have multiple meanings. Are you suggesting there
| should be human review for every ad? (Which is not saying it's
| necessarily a bad idea; just trying to understand how you
| imagine it'd work.)
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| I think a lot of people here will say that there should be a
| decentralized "global" index that any search provider
| frontend can source their results from. I'm not sure exactly
| how that would work. But the goal is to separate advertising
| from the search index itself.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-10 23:00 UTC)