Facebook only offers links for iPhones

Facebook claims that at first it is more convenient and fast on the social network. Together with several newspapers, he therefore introduced the concept of Instant Articles. The partnership makes sense at first glance, but a threat to the future. What will all end up like a loot / play in the mouth of a large ps?

Facebook announced for a long time and a little nervously anticipated news Instant Articles (Okamit lnky) among the newspapers. He agreed with several media that he would publish their selected articles directly with him. This change only applies to the Facebook proiPhone application.

It’s a big change in the idea of ​​copper: give your content to someone else. Facebook is not only a site where people go to hunt, but also a city where content is consumed. The partners have only published one text a day, but it probably won’t last long. There are also logical views that the media have taken their own home pages with this step and slowly walk to the post-web. The rest of some new projects don’t really have their own website.

Newspapers and media experts are looking to deal with the arrest with apprehension. When David Carr first wrote about the recently deceased Instant Articles, there were a lot of critical opinions that the media should not do. Carr described his relationship with Facebook as a situation where a big dog against you and you really don’t know if he wants to play with you or he intended to work.

Why are the Okamit links on Facebook right first?

The arguments against the new Facebook Instant Articles feature are clear and there are many that do nothing good. The main ones are:

    • Mdium degrades from the role publisher and straight suppliers. His prestige, character and vitality may decline
    • So Mdium loses full control over its content. ist theoretically me facebook one day ct: So we found out that investigative urnistics only annoys our users. negative moods, people are in discussions, disgusted to leave and the smell of Facebook itself. Therefore, we decided to reduce the visibility of these posts in the newsfeed. Or: there is a large country and the aim is for the people to be able to use the sites to improve their lives, influence the environment and create communities. To make this democratic activism possible, we must comply with the laws there. Therefore, we decided that at first he will not take it in the form of Instant Articles. It’s especially how much Facebook I have. And it’s logical: it’s always his own hit.
    • The media risks losing contact with its own users, losing its own identity and characters.
    • If the NY Times is hot with people that you can pay for content, then the opposite is true here: content is free for people and even those who offer it to them.
    • Facebook can suddenly change the business conditions or dream of the visibility of instant links, because it will not be satisfied, resp. because it will have a new game that it will want to force on users. He did it regularly and did it again. Someone will remember you on news applications using the principle frictionless sharing z roku 2011?
    But during these times something has changed and it has a completely subjective feeling that the resistance is not so strong. m it?

Snapchat at the line shows, and pr newspaper newspaper

Snapchat, who was the news day jumper, is also to blame. Snapchat (a mobile application for instant, temporary and occasional ghosting) has created a new Discover section in its application, where selected partners can publish their content. Because Snapchat may not function as a source of activity (also not much to lose) and because I have an irresistible target group for the media (a billion that the media fight for in vain), the above partner has appeared enough.

And it was a shower. Some praised their links for a million views and advertisements for $ 100 per 1,000 impressions. If you advertise seene mdium itself, it takes seven hundred percent. If you leave it to Snapchat, he takes half. Also, if the advertisement was sold and owned, the media could have from Snapchat and seven hundred thousand dollars a day (about 1.7 million crowns). And then it’s tk not to fall in love.

Of course, it will not work this way. Click-through rate will decrease, advertising will not always occur and the interest in the news from the user will also decrease. According to The Information and about half (but below the time). However, the media has been happy to read that their own website can be just one of the places where they can offer their content. It is not only his work that is important, but also the overall reach of their work. And d go for it.

Let’s give them an offer they can’t refuse!

The offer from Facebook was jet lkavj. Whoever seene advertising, leave in. Who does not get 70 percent. You can use your own analytics (which is quite surprising and definitely a very difficult step, almost crucial for me, because the media will not be blind: see how people react to what). The supplier does not undertake in advance for the amount of the content. Leave me anytime. Buzzfeed praised himself that Facebook did not act from a sly position at all and tried to set himself up so that the media would be satisfied.

Why does Facebook want links with you? Always give one main argument. One step, but any truth: a mobile Facebook user (and most of them) are not happy with the mobile versions of news sites. They are interested in something on FB, they click and then wait and wait. According to Facebook, it’s about eight seconds. Even if it was me, let’s say two or three seconds, it’s annoying.

If the links will be directly on Facebook, the shoot has accelerated significantly. According to the claims of Facebook and ten quarters. The user will be satisfied, and Facebook will also be satisfied. And so he drove with an offer that the media would not be able to reject. If you hear Godfather in the previous w, hear him there first. They say that if they reject the offer, someone else will take it. The mon will then be advantageous and they will remain left for an absolutely unloved place.

Just remember what Facebook did with the video. The videos were just two links out. Then it was possible to watch YouTube on Facebook. He quickly found out that it was spn and mainly saw the advertising potential of the video. And so he played with his own video game, which has a useful advantage over YouTube: it launches itself and Facebook protects it in the newsfeed. It didn’t take long for everyone to understand that it was better to upload video content directly to Facebook.

A similar principle can occur here: Facebook instant links are advantageous compared to external links. Legitimate from their point of view: they are satisfied. That’s why he’s a long time off, so what wouldn’t make them worse. And unconnected media will watch the decline in vvtvnost.

Facebook’s dominance among sources of activity is a disadvantage for the media: their negotiating position is not very strong, because they cannot read, so we are going elsewhere. Twitter and put them far behind. This is a general problem of the Internet, which is extremely strong in many industries. It is very optimistic to play the other violin. Sp murmur fully outside the concert hall.

It will be interesting to see if Google responds in some way. Danny Sullivan provoked himself, took the FB press first and exchanged the Facebook Instant Articles for Google Instant Results. It seems that the agreement with Facebook means the future, when the opened website will replace the walled garden of Facebook and Google. Then the entry of new games on the market would be really difficult, because two large companies would basically determine what, where, what for how much you can browse on the Internet.


Peter Stars (Twitter)@petersterne
13. may 2015 at 07:19, pspvek archivovn: 20. may 2015 at 16:00

The launch of Instant Articles could be seen as a nail in the coffin for the idea of an open, browser-based mobile web.

28 lid to sdlreply to tweetblbit

For some it is clear, for others it is complicated

So they make a fatal mistake when they linger to Facebook like this? From my discussion it is obvious that it is a complicated and simple answer. Very bad for the specific media and its business model.

BuzzFeed sprvn ekl Facebook YES. It is not even banner advertising, I do not subscribe to and earn money for native advertising, so it does not matter if it is on some www bazfd kom or www fejsbuk kom. Dleit is the reach of the text, not the content of the web.

This is what one of the many native BuzzFeed ads looks like. The video about the cat explaining the situation in the home is the original editorial content, sponsored by the producer of the cat:

They make it more expensive: a large number of people come to us from the social st. And let’s address the people directly on them. Only five percent divk videos BuzzFeed vid videos on the web. Calm down so I can be in the lnk.

It’s obviously complicated with the famous The New York Times, and it would be quite interesting to know if FB got anything particularly special. But not because the conditions are so free. Personally, I don’t think the Times makes a mistake.

The risks can be seen by everyone, even by the supporters of the pact with Facebook. And one with Carr: it’s just a matter of who m rd dogs. The truth is that under the jet we don’t know what the dog did if he caught up with him.

About the Author

You may also like these