“Early in April Mark Zuckerberg testified before a combined Senate Judiciary and Commerce committee hearing. The first session alone lasted over five hours. During this time one thing stood out: the rather playful smile that frequently danced around his face. Does the CEO of Facebook know something that his interrogators do not? Is the impending demise of Facebook as an advertising channel somewhat premature?
“Denis Healey, a rumbustious Labour chancellor, once memorably compared a verbal lashing from Lord Howe, then his shadow, to being “savaged by a dead sheep.” Watching some of the congressional hearing, and reading the reports after the first day, reminded me of this rather withering assessment of Lord Howe’s powers of questioning. Zuckerberg’s smile may well have been the result of a similarly flaccid mauling by Senators, who failed even to mention Instagram on day one. However, I suspect the reason maybe something simpler; something that is of relevance for all of us who make heavy use of social media channels for our communication plans.
User behaviour is highly unlikely to change.
Pictured: Mark Zuckerberg testified before a combined Senate Judiciary and Commerce committee hearing following the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
“This is not a given, of course. Periodically there are both serious and ridiculous posts by Facebook users highlighting to us the personal data dangers posed by Facebook. This usually energises a few bloggers to take to their warrior keyboards to predict the end of social media as a force in advertising. And then very little happens. To understand this we need to look at the basic structure for Facebook as a user tool. Think about the deal we all made: Facebook gives us connectivity on a global scale with friends, relations and, if we want it, a whole heap of complete strangers wherever they are living. We can enter competitions and make public our ‘Like’ for a variety of causes close to our philanthropic hearts, without ever having to put hands into pockets. In return we give…what?
“In 2015 Cadie Thompson of CNBC online probably spoke for many when we consider signing up for a social media account, stating: “Unless you are an attorney or a privacy advocate, you probably do what most people do and quickly scroll through terms of service agreements and privacy policies ignoring the fine print to get registered for a new account.” User eyes are on the prize, the toys that Facebook offers, and they eschew the flipside of the deal being made.
“To emphasise this point, it is worth considering some research undertaken by Mikko Hypponen, a security researcher at F-Secure. He told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that his company carried out an experiment to ascertain whether users engage with terms and conditions when the free prize is hoving fast into view. He found that 100 per cent of those offered access to a free WiFi hotspot in Westminster failed to read a set of conditions that required users to sign away their first-born child or favourite pet. The Times placed this in context, quoting a researcher’s explanation of the Faustian deal as a result of, ‘their rush to take advantage of technology.’
Pictured: “User eyes are on the prize, the toys that Facebook offers, and they eschew the flipside of the deal being made,” says Chris Journeaux.
“The truth is that a combination of doom-mongers warnings, and some fairly obvious questions to be asked about a user’s deal with Facebook, should have caused us to question just a little what we were giving up. But we didn’t. Despite many a social media ‘expert’ getting all wound up in knots about this current cataclysmic betrayal of our data rights, as some see it, the users will likely raise an eyebrow, and move on. Sure, GDPR has some serious implications for the legality of data management by social media sites. However, given that businesses are still turning up to events that claim to explain the new legislation, and at this late stage, the odds are that few users have begun to grapple with the granular detail of implications for their relationship with Facebook. Which all means that Facebook still represents a sound communication channel for your business. So long as you are matching message with audience profile.
“Reputation is never a given, it is a fact born of customer, user and client perception. If the prize remains sufficiently eye-catching then why would anyone leave Facebook in the kind of numbers likely to herald its demise. Shifting demographics for users, and types of use, need focus from advertisers but that is simply a part of the external audit you should be monitoring anyway.
“If you want to see confidence in this fact then listen to Zuckerberg himself in the midst of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, that saw user data of up to 87 million people allegedly sold by a third-party developer. During his testimony before the Senate he reiterated: “there will always be a version of Facebook that is free.” And, of courses free was always the main prize that drew our audiences to the channel.”
You can read the digital edition of Connect here.