Ahh, the Facebook fight that’s seemingly ongoing.
Brands having a tantrum because Facebook is now making them pay more to reach the audience they bought in the first place. Facebook claiming that this isn’t the case and brands need to be more savvy with their social strategy.
Is this fair or unfair? Whatever you believe, the battle in the ring rages on.
In the left hand corner we’ve got the brand brigade. Small, medium and large businesses all fighting for the fan base they grew organically, or they bought through highly targeted ads for a pretty penny. (I’m not even going to give those brands who paid Fiverr for their audience a look in, as far as I’m concerned they bought a fake ticket to the show and are stuck outside the venue).
Actually, this side isn’t simply fighting on behalf of brands, but for any business or interest based page. It could be the innocent Auckland based blogger (like me) or the charity Facebook page with little to no budget trying to get a look in and attract donations socially. The brand side is getting more and more vocal with companies like Eat24’s break up letter to Facebook, arguing that they shouldn’t have to pay to reach the audience they bought through advertising in the first place.
But then, in the right corner we have Facebook itself. The reigning champion of the ring, becoming so popular that last year the number of brand pages liked by the average Facebook user grew by 50%. Facebook, who grew from small beginnings to becoming the platform that reaches more people on an hourly basis in New Zealand than all of the NZ TV shows on every channel in peak hour, combined*.
It is no secret that the potential reach of a Facebook post ridiculously out-shadows traditional media. Heck, when I was working in Australia we have a Facebook post for one of our radio stations reach 57 MILLION people**. Organically.
But that was last year, and this is now. So what’s changed?