A recent article by Mark Walsh on MediaPost signals trouble for social networks, even if it’s just the result of an informal and rather biased study.
A Mashable poll asked which social networks had the best ads: Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, hi5, Friendster, LinkedIn, ‘other’ and ‘they’re all equally horrible’ were the answer choices. I can almost hear you giggling at this point, so I assume there won’t be much of a surprise to confirm that yes, indeed, ‘they’re all equally horrible’ is the winner, proudly followed by Facebook!
At quite some distance from the horror and Facebook came Friendster, then MySpace and LinkedIn.
Surely, this was ‘just a poll’ and not a very scientific one: advertising is probably perceived as evil and a price to pay for accessing certain content and services online, so the ‘horrible’ answer may have been used just because it was offered.
Still, if we look at the honorable runner-up, Facebook, it’s obvious why users have chosen it as the least offensive. For now, Facebook ads are quite discreet (the little boxes with mostly text ads that you never click on…) and users seem to be punishing the flashy, tacky, in-your-face ads you’re most likely to meet on MySpace or hi5. Schroeder explains Facebook’s approach by implying that the ‘visually unobtrusive’ ad box is more eye-catchy than the Google ads present on MySpace. Here’s when Facebook lost me, though. Facebook is by now ‘renowned’ to ad agencies to have one of the lowest CTR and conversion rate in the history of the internet – why would Mr. Schroeder willingly compare Facebook’s ad performance (or lack thereof) with Google AdSense’s on social networks?
