[HN Gopher] Tell HN: Facebook Messenger is testing in-call video...
___________________________________________________________________
Tell HN: Facebook Messenger is testing in-call video ads
A few minutes ago I was calling my family, and had a 15-second
video ad after they picked up. According to them, they saw the ad
too. Do you think this is a case of A/B Testing, or are the ads
here to say? Picture for reference: https://imgur.com/a/ddddPAm
Author : dindindin
Score : 87 points
Date : 2022-11-16 20:17 UTC (2 hours ago)
| MandieD wrote:
| Some chipper, go-getter PM forgot that not every call is a light,
| happy call.
| user3939382 wrote:
| That's a f no from me dawg. They can add this to every video
| service out there and I'll happily set up a SIP PBX. Not
| happening.
| GoodJokes wrote:
| kevinsundar wrote:
| Assuming this is true, who comes up with ideas like this?
|
| If I was an advertiser do I really want to pay to have my ad
| (video nonetheless) shown to someone while they're actively
| trying to have a phone call? As a user, I'd just be pissed off at
| the advertiser plus im not looking at my screen when talking.
|
| I guess technically this increases ad "views" metrics. But
| advertisers are just wasting their money. I hope the fact that
| Meta is testing changes like this causes advertisers to re-
| evaluate the risks of using FB advertising.
| 3D30497420 wrote:
| A PM who's been given a metric goal and has their performance
| staked on hitting goal with nothing to counter-balance their
| push to hit that goal.
|
| I recall a presentation someone gave awhile back which said
| something like, "Give a PM a goal that their job depends on and
| they will burn the company down to hit it."
|
| I was a PM at a FAANG in a former life, so I can understand the
| pressure. Thankfully, I never did anything like this, partly
| because my team had a strong focus on customer experience but
| also because I cared less about the financial/promotion
| incentives.
| junga wrote:
| Ads are often (if not always) shown to users who are actively
| trying to do something else. Like watching a video or reading
| an article. Why should this be different?
| nyokodo wrote:
| > video or reading an article
|
| Setting aside that people load their browsers up with ad
| blockers to avoid those too, they're also async experiences
| that have no real-time social dynamics involved with them.
| Video calls are interpersonal and interruptions are highly
| problematic.
| kevinsundar wrote:
| Yes, but in the cases you mentioned the user is interacting
| with the same pane of glass. In this case, the user's
| interaction is voice, not the screen.
|
| Also not to mention that calls are very private. And the
| impression it gives to consumers that their call is being
| used for ads or even tracking.
| burkaman wrote:
| I am certain the advertisers love this. All ads are intrusive,
| and generally the more intrusive the more expensive.
| iceburgcrm wrote:
| The call to action piece is missing because even if you see
| something you want to click-on you will avoid it because you
| have a live call
| kevinsundar wrote:
| Yes but intruding into private audio calls is something users
| would be heavily suspicious of. It's not hard to imagine a
| non technical users thinking "OMG they're showing me ads
| based on my calls". Lots of people already think this.
|
| Also its one thing to show an expensive ad on a screen that
| the user is actively looking at (that might actually be
| effective), and another to show an expensive ad on a screen
| that 95% of users are not looking at.
| soco wrote:
| But the ads they show _will_ be based on your calls right?
| Because, how else...
| mcculley wrote:
| Why would they have to be based on the calls? Facebook
| already knows a lot about the participants.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Has Facebook ever indicated they're capable of a "yep,
| we've got enough info on everyone, we're good" attitude?
| api wrote:
| If true this will end up selecting for less technical
| people, which will mean it'll turn into an ad feed full of
| quack garbage that is aggressively marketed to less
| technical people.
| gotfork wrote:
| This looks like the layout for the "Watch Together" feature:
| https://messengernews.fb.com/2020/09/14/feel-together-messen...
|
| There's a bottom section that slides up and if a user clicks on
| one of the videos it will play for all participants. If anyone
| sees this and didn't intentionally click on one of those videos
| please file a bug!
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| I wonder what would happen if there would be more "Karens",
| that would complain about this?
|
| Looking at the screenshot, let's say it's a cat food ad... if
| that "Karen" would call the cat food company and complain that
| their ad wasted her time with an old relative, or whatever, and
| in turn waste that companies time... and multiply that with
| 10.000 karens,... but it needs people to actually be proactive
| about stuff like that.
| underyx wrote:
| I don't understand why you would choose to say "karens"
| instead of "people".
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Because "Karens" are usually the ones who complain to
| managers about stuff like this. "People" just say "meh" or
| complain to a friend or two, and a "Karen" will go through
| a whole line of managers and complain to all of them.
| saos wrote:
| Is this real?
| bitcharmer wrote:
| I bet this is some MBA's idea
| saos wrote:
| I won't be surprised. Completely devoid of creativity and ideas
| bombcar wrote:
| Meta Brand Assassin?
| aussieshibe wrote:
| I suspect this will be the final straw for many users, myself
| included.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| Bonus points if the ad preceding your next conversation is
| uncannily relevant to what you were talking about last time.
| i_have_an_idea wrote:
| If it's true, it's a hilariously bad decision
| ugjka wrote:
| Coming to Whatsapp soon
| thombat wrote:
| And coming to Skype or Zoom or WebEx or some other
| competitor: a notification that "Unlike some of our
| competitors, we promise never to intrude into your calls"
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| We will never merge data from WA and FB!
| whimsicalism wrote:
| This makes 0 sense to me. There's literally no lock in with FB
| messenger.
|
| The second I get a video ad - that's it for FB video calls for
| me.
| apetresc wrote:
| What do you mean? It's a messaging platform with built-in
| integration to the largest social network in the world. I
| couldn't possibly imagine a more textbook example of lock-in.
| otikik wrote:
| because it happens on a mobile phone, which already has a
| built-in way to do it.
|
| "Hey mum, I decided to call you because that video ad
| bullshit is bullshit".
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| But that doesn't include video part of a videocall and in
| many cases (internationall calls) cost quite a lot still.
|
| The main push from sms/mms and calling to messaging
| services was the free price and additional features.
| monsieurgaufre wrote:
| Facetime (and/or Duo) will work exactly the same. Both
| are free.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Yes, but you need an apple device for facetime, and how
| many people actually have Duo installed?
|
| If your grandma has facebook and all her friends have
| facebook and all your friends have facebook... how many
| of them can you move over to Duo (r signal, telegram,
| matrix,...)?
| ismokedoinks wrote:
| lol
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Wait, what? On a _private_ person to person call? Curious if this
| will be a thing on cell phone calls next. This seems like a great
| way to kill off a platform.
| srveale wrote:
| We use fb for the family calls. This will add years to the
| project of being able to get grandma on a call without difficulty
| and I'm not sure she has that kind of time. I'm only half joking.
| jsemrau wrote:
| Interesting find. One might argue that ad-tech went too far on
| this one if they are tracking conversations to place the "right"
| ads. Some random thoughts: Would the ad be different for caller /
| recipient? Why would an advertiser place their ad there while
| there are "safer" places on Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Disney, etc?
| Are ad-tech business models at the end of the innovation cycle?
| What's coming next?
| theropost wrote:
| Is it going to display ads based on the conversation of the call?
| tomschwiha wrote:
| Its a win-win. Less bandwith costs -> cost reduction. Higher
| revenue. More, more money.
|
| Sounds like someone deserves a promotion. Just look at the right
| numbers for your arguments.
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| I need to say, that I would probably lost my marbles if video
| call application would do anything like that.
| rejectfinite wrote:
| Time to move the family chat to Telegram.
| woofwoofwoof wrote:
| It is slowly adding ads as well. Currently in the channels
| only, but just give them some time.
| barbs wrote:
| Seems like a terrible idea. As others have pointed out, there are
| plenty of alternative platforms at hand that you can use for
| videochats, and I can't think of any that show intrusive video
| ads like this.
|
| In the past, I've used Jitsi for when Facebook Messenger wasn't
| working for whatever reason.
| tapoxi wrote:
| Look I get that people love to shit on Signal because its not
| perfect, but this is the main reason I use it to call and message
| my family. It's a viable alternative to insane shit like
| Messenger and you should consider having your family members
| install it. It's incredibly easy to use.
|
| Cue someone below me talking about how they set up a Matrix or
| XMPP server for grandma and its 'so easy' once you get the
| presence handshake working and if you're using a specific set of
| clients that support the right features.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Is there a reason Signal couldn't put ads in their video call
| product?
| woofwoofwoof wrote:
| I believe it is non-profit currently, so making money is not
| their top priority.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Non-profits still have to stay in business. My health
| insurer is "non-profit".
| sschueller wrote:
| So why did they think they had to do the crypto token
| thing?
| shaldengeki wrote:
| This is an interesting question. Doesn't Signal rather
| famously not track anything about who you're talking to?
| Reputational damage to Signal's brand aside, I expect it'd be
| hard to sell advertisers on a black hole.
| fsflover wrote:
| You can have advertisements without tracking. See the
| original TV ads.
| theCrowing wrote:
| that's amazing... there are people in a meeting room at facebook
| believing this will increase revenue and the product owner of fb
| messenger said yes. lol
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Just tells you a lot a lot what to expect in Metaverse and the
| experience there.
| ergonaught wrote:
| Because consumers have a stellar track record of rejecting
| user-hostile decisions?
|
| May as well try it. People are swallowing everything else.
| victordmor wrote:
| I don't think that said PO said yes naturally, I think he said
| yes forcefully.
| otikik wrote:
| If the meeting was virtual they could "enjoy" being interrupted
| by their own adds. Dogfooding!
| ravenstine wrote:
| _TECH LEAD: We tested in-call video ads and engagement went up._
|
| _CMO: Excellent! Outstanding!_
|
| _TECH LEAD: It went up on the "End Call" button, and somewhat on
| the "Delete Account" button._
|
| _CMO: ... So... you 're saying I'll be getting a pay raise at
| the end of Q4?_
|
| _TECH LEAD: That was never in question._
| Yhippa wrote:
| This is interesting. It sounds like Facebook is potentially
| looking under the couches, so-to-speak, for spare change by doing
| this. I also wonder if other comms apps are going to be doing
| this too?
| joshstrange wrote:
| Zoom has the audacity to show me (a paying Zoom subscriber) ads
| in the UI and at the end of calls. It's infuriating, even more
| so since it's ads for nothing I'd ever consider using.
|
| In UI: https://cs.joshstrange.com/zTpdlC
|
| End of call, always on top, popup:
| https://cs.joshstrange.com/BizVwE
|
| EDIT: I get that it's less offensive since it's a "first-party
| ad"/"upsell" and I could forgive the banner in the app (even
| though dismissing it only makes it go away for like 24 hours,
| if that) but the popups post-meeting drive me bonkers. To the
| point I've considered seeing if I can write some code to watch
| for that window and kill it right away.
| dragonsky67 wrote:
| I don't see those things any more even when they do pop up.
| It's amazing how quickly you get trained to simply ignore
| advertising.
| yakattak wrote:
| This is annoying but advertisements tailored to the product
| you're using aren't nearly as offensive to just a random ad
| for some cheap wish.com product, interrupting your video
| call.
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| Free customer? I get it.
|
| Paying customer? That's big no no
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Probably 80% of the SaaS apps I've run into have "want
| this feature? upgrade your plan!" upsells scattered
| around. It's clearly not a big no no.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| First-party upsells aren't at all uncommon in paid products.
| That's _very_ different than what Facebook is doing.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-16 23:02 UTC)