COMMENTS
This is what Paul had to say at the ZDNet article he wrote:
"I get it, but it needs to get me."
"Hi Mike,
Thanks for the response. You know I love you guys and I get what you say. But the problem isn't my unwillingness to participate. Its not my choice. If this is in Facebook permissions somewhere then it should be opt-in, not opt-out. While I understand the randomness of the choice of my picture, I have a brand in CRM and my opinion seems to matter to some people, so I don't endorse anything without considerable effort. (see my blog posts on companies to watch in December 08 and January 09.) I'm a big fan of HubSpot and likely would support this. But this has Facebook in a Beacon-like situation again. My profile is leased to them for commercial purposes but I still control it.
That has to be paramount and this breaks that "rule." Again, nothing to do with Hubspot. It can stay up as far as I'm concerned. This really is a matter of principle. You guys rock. This idea doesn't."
I agree with Paul. I think Facebook has a weird situation on their hands.
On the one hand, they have the users who use the service but don't pay a dime. On the other side they have the advertisers, who support the service financially, and want higher click through rates on their ads.
That made me wonder how much social actions increase click through rates. So, I just launched a duplicate ad without social actions. Reminde me in a couple weeks and I can check and see which one performs better.
PS... Paul - One note, the "social action" is actually only shown to your friends, not anyone on Facebook.
Bottom line, any use of an identity, name, brand, or image should only come AFTER the express consent of the owner thereof. This is a really good example of why I run a really robust adblocker on most web pages, and why I never click on Facebook ads - the implied consent trap door.
I think the very fact that most ppl going about their business on facebook will be unaware of their data being used like this, facebook's assumption, or some T&C's that are buried away somewhere, make this a marketing model that should have disappeared years ago.
permission always needs to be explicit, or, it is in my opinion underhand (which impacts upon trust) towards both the platform and the advertiser.
Mike
Well, this kind of forces the issue, doesn't it? Looks like the old adage of "asking forgiveness instead of permission" may have lost some of its luster. The whole thrust of social networking seems (to me) to treat others as you'd like to be treated. This is a good example. Nothing malicious here--but I bet we are going to stub our toes a few more times in the learning process.
I think Paul has a legitimate point, but only to the scope of not understanding his options on Facebook. Like most complaints, they are based in mistrust. In this case, the quickest and easiest target was Hubspot. I do believe Facebook should disclose this a little better, but I also think it is a valuable tool for marketers that should not be removed.
it is a delicate topic whenever privacy is in question. though upon our acceptance to use FB we've implicitly allowed FB to use that information based on the user settings we select. On their privacy page:
"When you visit Facebook you provide us with two types of information: personal information you knowingly choose to disclose that is collected by us and Web Site use information collected by us as you interact with our Web Site."
i am more concerned with the ads served that do not have any relation to me e.g. just because i was in Utah for a few days to snowboard and sundance it does not mean i'd want to attend a graphic and design school in Salt Lake City.
I think part of the problem is Paul thinking (and others on this blog) that they are a "brand". Facebook wasn't designed for "brands", it was designed for people - real people who have real friends. College kids and the like. If your friend is a fan of some band, you want to know. The social action makes the ad for some cool new rock band more personal and
more relevant which is what we all seek.
Another thought: While facebook might be pushing the envelope a bit, how is this different from the news feed. When paul became a fan of HubSpot on facebook, it went out in his news feed to all his friends. Was his brand "advertising" to his audience, or was he a human being who is a fan of the work here. All the ad is really doing is "replaying his news feed item" the fact that he publicly stated he is a "fan" on a public group.
@Scott Gatz, interesting view, but I think that this is very different from Paul becoming a fan and the notification of his "fanship" being populated to the news feeds of his friends. This was an action initiated by Paul and therefore it's OK. What's different here is that HubSpot is PAYING for an advertisement and a Facebook user IS the advertisement. While this strategy is effective (presumably), I don't think it's necessarily *right* for Facebook to do something like this.
RE: personal brand... everyone is a brand.
Scott - I absolutely agree with you.
You appear in social ads ONLY if (1) the ad is being shown to a friend (not just anyone) AND (2) you are indeed a fan/member of that page/group. This is use of public information (your pages/groups are public if you set them as such in your privacy settings) in a relevant manner. If you are worried about your personal brand being used by an organization which you are a fan of, then maybe you should not be a fan of that page.
Wow. I thought those Hub Spot ads were majorly cool and clever. I was wondering how you did it, and now I know.
I think if you sign up to be a fan of a page, you should expect the page to promote that a little. I feel the permission IS implicit. I am all for permission-based marketing, esp. for email, but in this case, where it is a social community, I think Paul and Brent are off the mark. Mountain out of a molehill!
Is this a um. a "guy thing?" 'Cause us chicks are all about the community. :) Just sayin'...
Personally, I would LOVE to be featured in a HubSpot Facebook ad! I'm proud to be a fan.
We are in a new age, defining what is truly "personal" and what "acceptable" use of an individual's name and likeness. Facebook is on the front edge, and I suspect that what we find offensive in this behavior today will likely be the norm or tomorrow.
I think the Hubspot Ad stopped short of an endorsement and indicated only an affiliation. Had it gone further and "claimed" and endorsement of their product, that would be fraudulent.
The mechanism exists within the structure of Facebook to control this activity, so in the end it is a non-issue. Let the buyer(user) beware and aware of the social network functioning!
I think he's right and you folks are wrong.
What's the functional or moral difference between this and a pre-checked opt-in box? Everyone gets their undies in a bunch about that (as they should) but you're defending this with, "If you are worried about your personal brand being used by an organization which you are a fan of, then maybe you should not be a fan of that page" ?!
No, no, no.
How about, "don't use my likeness or imply an endorsement without my express permission".
Anything else, at the very least, smells a bit. And that's being kind.
Paul is right and HubSpot is on the verge of sleazy. I wouldn't use my *daughter's* likeness or name to endorse anything without her permission. And she give me LOTS of latitude.
Facebook is an interesting, new and strange animal. But because it is virtual and distances us from our 'friends' and 'fans' we (humans) have a tendency to act differently than we would in person. Rather than allowing our standards for decency and good manners take a nose dive, just because we don't get immediate negative reinforcement (like when you pick your nose in the restaurant), let's all play nice and listen to the little voice in your head that says "Is this a good thing? or will it make that guy uncomfortable, mad, pissed, etc."
The little voice rarely lies.
Of course Paul is right. I thought the permission-based marketing model was universally accepted by legitimate marketers. I think Facebook has a major faux pas on their hands by "assuming" permission to use someone's image in an ad without their express permission.
Mike,
I've been burned with this one; the implied consent does not support your relationship with Paul if he did not grant you permission. Always ask beforehand and you'll be rewarded. Fail to ask and roll the dice.
Robert.
I think the posters above have echoed my thoughts better than I can. Facebook should require the user to 'opt-in' rather than 'opt-out'.
At the same time, I understand that Facebook needs to make revenue. Selling advertising is the primary way of doing this. Social networks must find ways to balance the two opposites - making money and providing a 'free' service.
If their social ads were opt-in only, there would certainly be only a sliver of users who would allow it. Facebook has chosen the revenue over the the explicit permission.
I'm really surprised that none of the major social networks have a great big page titled "How we use your Profile" that explains to users exactly when and how their profile is utilized. Not only would it improve the permission based marketing efforts, users would always have a place to go to manage their profile options.
Implied consent is not consent at all! Facebook will be challenged on this and eventually there will be public and legal backlash against them. This subject definitely comes up a lot in my line of work.
I think I have a looser perspective on this because I recognize that (most of) my Facebook profile and the information, more generally, that I post on the Internet is pretty much public.
When you become a fan of a page:
- it gets populated in your news feed
- it shows up on your profile
- it is included in your public search listing (http://www.facebook.com/help.php?ref=hq&hq=public%20search%20listing)
- and it can be included in social ads (simply stating you are a fan)
... UNLESS you tell Facebook you don't want any of this to happen.
Though Facebook has taken those steps beyond - introducing the news feed, introducing social ads, etc. - without an expressed opt-in, they have made privacy settings very customizable so that you can limit the use of any of your profile data.
When the news feed was first introduced, there was an uproar from Facebook users. Now, the news feed is a central component of the social network. I agree with Jeff - "Facebook is on the front edge, and I suspect that what we find offensive in this behavior today will likely be the norm tomorrow."
Beacon was one of the biggest reasons why I won't use certain sites anymore.
I wouldn't appreciate being used to advertise anything, especially without my permission.
The matter boils down to permission, disclosure and awareness.
I see both sides of the matter, but I put the responsibility on Facebook to make sure users are aware and give them the opportunity to use their headshot as an endorsement of a brand or company.
Personally, if I become a fan of a company, I have no problem making an 'endorsement' of the brand in their own paid advertising. I figure if I didn't want to be in their advertising, I can remove my status as a friend.
Yeah, it can be kind of like big-brother, but it's logical. It's informing my friends that I support a specific company or brand.
I conclude that Facebook should provide an example of what their endorsements may look like and yield a 1-click approach to make it more appropriate for those who are privacy conscious.
~Joe Manna
- http://www.infusionsoft.com/
- http://twitter.com/JoeManna
I commented to Mike on Twitter but he asked me to come on over and join the discussion.
The simple version of what I said, since I only had 140 characters, was:
"facebook should require opt-in and share Ad revenue. Kind of like Google AdSense. Facebook is trading on the affiliation."
Much like Paul said earlier, it is about his affiliation and full endorsement. Being a "fan" of someone or something on facebook does not imply an endorsement.
Further, facebook is trading on the fan's affiliation to improve and increase the relevance of the ad placement. This would increase what they could charge for the ad. As such, the "fan endorsement" should provide some type of compensation. For example, if you opt-in, the fan should get some type of revenue share.
Overall, I look at this like Google's AdSense. I can opt-in by adding AdSense to a site or a blog but that is explicit. If my content generates click-throughs for Google then I get compensated. And so it is for facebook.
Like Paul I view the situation like as a Beacon-like situation again. They have assumed opt-in where it should really be explicit. For me this is their second strike. I hope they do not strike out. It really is a pretty good service.
Mike, I would also like Hubspot to allow a preview of comments and a time-out for changes. I see grammatical errors in what I just wrote. I hope that people understand what I said.
You know what? Facebook MUST give every user the ability to opt in/out of Social Ads (in a very obvious place so they won't miss it buried deep within an outrageously long text body). That way ad buyers wouldn't have to wonder what each and every person would think. There's probably self-promoting folks who would love to have another company plaster their face all over Facebook.
Definately should be an opt in, not an opt-out.
I got a couple of FB ads with my step-daughters image and I was sort of shocked. It was for a massive party that was coming, and since she is a minor I thought it pretty bad. She insisted that she had no idea how her image got used, and now I know. thanks for that.
If nothing else, I would assume that FB would have a policy to not use the image of a minor in an ad, and since they know our DOB it should be pretty easy to put in place.
My 0.02€
Thanks for share, well done ,,Nike air max 90 running shoe,