It's a pretty smart strategy. Charge people to communicate--it should reduce spam and bring FB more revenue. One thing I'm not sure of is how effective promoted posts are. I built a website and tried a few different ad platforms. I saw the best performance from Google's Adwords and the worst performance from Facebook.
back
2 comments
If you build a fan/business page, and get 100 fans. People that enjoy you or your service. Why should you have to pay to promote your posts just to reach those very people that already said they enjoy your company/person/brand/posts. It is a shady way for Facebook to try and milk their users to keep their shareholders happy. We understand why it's happening but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do to your users.
I see you're point, but when I look at the history of promotion and communication; companies have always had to pay to advertise. From commercials, to newspaper ads to those dreaded dinner time phone calls; Every medium charged promoters to communicate with customers.
Facebook was allowed to run a hobby until they went public and realized that they need to make money. This strategy of charging for using the communication medium just falls in line with what older traditional businesses have done for decades. At the end of the day, either the content creators and/or content consumers are going to have to pay--Facebook chose to charge the creators and I think that's good. If they charged me as a content consumer, I'd shut down my account.
Because you are using a service that you did not develop ? Of course facebook is here to make money , like you are.
But isnt that the same as saying "we are protecting your feed from spam", (unless someone pays us enough to trash your feed with spam) - in which case your feed is spam...sorry.
Interesting use of punctuation here...