Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mark Cuban: Facebook Is Driving Away Brands — Starting With Mine

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the monetizing-your-eyeballs dept.

Businesses 299

concealment sends this quote from an article at ReadWriteWeb: "Tech billionaire and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban says he is fed up with Facebook and will take his business elsewhere. He's sick of getting hit with huge fees to send messages to his team's fans and followers. Two weeks ago Cuban tweeted out a screen grab of an offer he'd received from Facebook. The social network wanted to charge him $3,000 to reach 1 million people. Along with the screen grab, Cuban wrote, 'FB is blowing it? This is the first step. The Mavs are considering moving to Tumblr or to new MySpace as primary site.'"

cancel ×

299 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Congratulations, Mr. Cuban! (4, Funny)

game kid (805301) | about 2 years ago | (#41972357)

Congratulations, Mr. Cuban! Facebook now considers you not just a product, but an actual user/venture-capital source!

Re: Congratulations, Mr. Cuban! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972405)

What the hell is /. Doing posting stories from a known troll?

That is cheap (5, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41972361)

And effective too with marketing. $3,000 might seem expensive for us but if you have million fans and make hundreds of millions then the fee is a drop in the bucket that will generate far more revenue than spamming people for tickets and events.

Re:That is cheap (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#41972561)

Compared to most other forms of Mass Marketing this is a rather fair deal.
Say you get 1% to respond of one million that is 10,000. If your product has $0.30 in profit then you break even. But who has $0.30 in profit, For a cheap product you usually get at least a few bucks out of it. So you pay for you Marking Cost. You could try the competitors and you may get a smaller rate, however you will not reach as many people.

Re:That is cheap (5, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about 2 years ago | (#41972899)

Compared to most other forms of Mass Marketing this is a rather fair deal.

Right; but it shouldn't be compared to "other forms of Mass Marketing" for several reasons.

  • because this was a free service, which was marketed as a free service and then changed
  • because in this case we are talking about people who voluntarily chose to connect to a company to get all it's messages
  • because this direct connectivity as in Google+, Facebook and so on is something completely new and different from tradional messaging

The first; that this is a bait and switch operation, is for me the most important. However even though I feel some sympathy for these people, they fundamentally brought it on themselves and this is a situation where it's the people's responsibility to do something different next time. Never lock yourself in to a computing product controlled by one vendor without a written guarantee of indefinite access to good terms written by a lawyer you can trust. This is something most people knew in the pre-Windows era.

Compare the diference between what happened when the Gnome Foundation went rogue with the same situation from Microsoft. Gnome replaced Gnome 2 with a completely different Gnome 3 interface which doesn't fit old users needs. Microsoft is replacing Windows with Metro + a backwards compatibility interface which also doesn't fit user's needs. Because the Gnome users have the source code and multiple suppliers, XFCE, Cinnamon and Unity have sprung up as interfaces designed to cater to the needs of users that Gnome 3 doesn't fit for. By the time people are forced to switch they will have a choice which is right for them. Microsoft is going to force people who are locked into Windows to accept whatever Microsoft wants them to accept. Only those people that can switch to OS/X or Linux will be able to escape.

To achieve the same in social networking, even people who use Facebook need to concentrate on using other solutions wherever they can provide equivalent functionality. Otherwise we all end up locked in.

Re:That is cheap (3, Informative)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 2 years ago | (#41973351)

The first; that this is a bait and switch operation,

No it's not. A bait-and-switch is advertising a product for some price and then when a customer comes you tell them the product is not available and you attempt to sell them something else. Changing a free service to being partially paid-for is not a bait-and-switch.

Re:That is cheap (4, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41972589)

.3 cents per person is really pretty cheap. Somehow telemarketers stay in business, and they're paying someone $8/hr to make what 20 calls an hour? If it's not worth .3 cents per person to contact them, you probably have no actual business contacting them at all.

Re:That is cheap (1)

bfandreas (603438) | about 2 years ago | (#41972859)

It also is a good BS filter.

It makes you think twice about sending that "lulz! hug U! luv Marky" message you feel the urge to share with the world. A million of interested leads(they actually opted in with the semi-soundness of mind that's required for Facebook) has got to be worth something.

Remind me: I've heard the name before but what is he supposed to be selling? I'm too lazy to look him up on Wikipedia. I've lost track of dotcom millionaires.

Re:That is cheap (2)

Trilkin (2042026) | about 2 years ago | (#41973191)

Mavericks-related merchandise probably. All you had to do was read the first few lines of the summary to see that he's the owner of the Mavericks and he's talking about their Facebook page.

Re:That is cheap (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41972621)

While I have no pity for Mr. Cuban(Oh, sure, facebook is just going to suck up the hosting bills for your web page and messaging system forever, for free...), this may well signal that Facebook has an actual problem...

If somebody who is, and has, actually run businesses and made money, and so forth, and is facebooking for commercial purposes is willing to throw a little tantrum in public about the price, this suggests that they don't think that facebook is worth what it is charging(or they do; but are willing to piss off a valuable communications channel over $3k). That would be bad for facebook. If you are an advertising vendor(which they are attempting to be, in this case) and a potential account laughs in your face, walks out, and then publishes an open letter mocking your offer as insultingly expensive, that isn't a good sign.

People whining about having to pay for things is largely irrelevant. People who are accustomed to paying for things refusing to pay for your product? That should make you nervous. Facebook has proven that people will flock to them at the $0 price point; but they have yet to do much testing of the demand curve at higher costs. If it turns out to be extremely elastic...

Re:That is cheap (5, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41972715)

Well if companies stop using them then FB will respond by lowering their prices. That is capitalism 101. Advertising and marketing aint cheap.

I do respect Mr. Cuban. I watch him on sharktank and out of all the clueless MBA morons, he knows his stuff and is intelligent and very hard working to make sure his clients are happy and performing well.

It is true I read Ford was paying $1 million for advertising on FB with full page ads. That is crazy, but if you think about it more eyeballs look at FB than TV without DVRs in 2012. If that $3000 per tweets for a game represents just a 10% increase in sales that can pay for itself easily!

If Cuban does not think that is fair he can fund another FB startup.

Re:That is cheap (5, Funny)

scottbomb (1290580) | about 2 years ago | (#41972631)

This is true. I've worked in advertising and $3000 ain't bad. Sounds like a temper-tantrum to me.

"The Mavs are considering moving to Tumblr or to new MySpace as primary site."

That's like going from primetime TV to midnight re-runs.

Re:That is cheap (1)

bfandreas (603438) | about 2 years ago | (#41972955)

This is true. I've worked in advertising and $3000 ain't bad. Sounds like a temper-tantrum to me.

"The Mavs are considering moving to Tumblr or to new MySpace as primary site."

That's like going from primetime TV to midnight re-runs.

Hasn't baseball moved to midnight reruns by now? Also there is a new MySpace? What happened to the old one? I suddenly feel really out of touch with stuff that really doesn't interest me. I shall put an appointment in my next weeks calendar and agonize a full second over his woe, grief and doom.That poor, poor man who's relevance had eluded me at the moment I hit the submit button. Also: Rich guy billed by FB. News at 11.

Re:That is cheap (2)

Albanach (527650) | about 2 years ago | (#41972811)

Will it really? It will be hard to monetize a lot of those fans because they may not be close to the team. Contacting your one million followers twice a week will cost you about $300,000 a year.

So assuming you can make money from 5% of your followers (50,000) you need to make $6 profit from them that you wouldn't otherwise have made for it to be profitable.

Given they have contact details and probably an email address for the fans who are most likely to spend money, I'd expect the 5% figure is actually very high and the actual figure might be somewhere in the ½% range. That would make the necessary profit per new customer to be in the region of $60/year.

Re:That is cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972953)

People who buy tickets pay a high profit margin which makes sense to advertise.

He sells tickets to games which can go from $60 to $3,000 easily and only in season. So that $300,000/4 would be more like $75,000 for basketball season. Now lets say that 5% spent on average $90. $90 x 50,000 = $450,000 in revenue - $75,000 = $375,000. Not bad.

We have no clue what he makes as the revenue is more than just eyeballs at the game. Hotdogs, parking, merchandise, and TV time all generate revenue and costs.

Re:That is cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41973199)

I do this type of stuff as a hobby, though on a different scale.

This charge is for pushing out a story as a promoted post, which IMHO is about the equivalent of sending out an email blast.

So, why is this a good deal? 1) Mark Cuban didn't pay for the acquisition of the Mavericks 2+ million fans. I highly doubt that any mailing list owned by the Mav's org is that large. 2) Targeting. With Facebook you can target ads and pushes to very specific audiences. Try doing that with a mailing list (or twitter). 3) Cost. 3k to have an 1+ million audience? Mail Chimp charges 4k PER MONTH for that type of functionality.

Of course, the first question needs to be WHY do you want to do this and then it needs to be WHAT is your expected outcome. If you are just pushing this out to say "Woo Hoo, first game tonight", then don't bother, use twitter or just push a new story up. If you are pushing a story about seats that are available, a promotion or new product (IE, revenue generating), then go for it.

Re:That is cheap (0)

pscottdv (676889) | about 2 years ago | (#41972945)

Mr. Cuban is quoted as saying:

"Remember most brands don't have social media departments. They rely on common sense. If someone likes your brand, it seems like common sense to me that you can expect your posts to reach 100% of those that like your brand. Doesn't it to you?"

I guess if I had spent money on Facebook advertising to get likes only to discover that I can't market to those people without spending even more money, I would feel a bit ripped off. Why did I spend the upfront money getting the likes again?

Re:That is cheap (5, Insightful)

Nikker (749551) | about 2 years ago | (#41973099)

You may not be taking into account that each company will send at least one posting a day but most of them are just basic updates to keep the company name fresh in their heads. If (in this example) you have 1M followers and you send just one update per day $3000x30 = $90,000/month or $1,095,000 a year just to send one message a day to people who have already shown interest in what ever you happen to be babbling about. So compare this to Twitter where I can send verbal diarrhea all day long for next to nothing and we now have a supply/demand curve. So while overall you're spending roughly $1/follower/year(for only one post/day) when you compare it to twitter you start to see that you can engage your fan base (not necessarily your customer base) in a much more responsive manner. You can try out different tactics and see what fits. If you blab too much people will stop listening (not following) you, if you get it right you will attract more attention and followers.

So as the rhetoric goes the market will work its self out as we see today with Cubans $0.02.

Re:That is cheap (2)

MisterSquid (231834) | about 2 years ago | (#41973315)

So compare this to Twitter where I can send verbal diarrhea all day long for next to nothing and we now have a supply/demand curve.

Thus is revealed Twitter's forthcoming business plan.

Re:That is cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41973319)

But he only has $2900 in cash on him usually.

why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972393)

That doesn't seem that expensive....

The actual news here... (4, Insightful)

InvisibleClergy (1430277) | about 2 years ago | (#41972395)

...is that Facebook is actually having to deal with the consequences of their shady shenanigans!

Re:The actual news here... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#41972717)

...is that Facebook is actually having to deal with the consequences of their shady shenanigans!

Somehow I don't believe FB has something like this in their minds. More probable: new shady shenanigans for cash.

Re:The actual news here... (1)

Cassius.Bilbao (893851) | about 2 years ago | (#41972895)

...is that Facebook is actually having to deal with the consequences of their shady shenanigans!

This! And Cuban (stating the obvious) summed it up nicely : "I Wouldn't Buy Facebook Stock"

Cuban is bluffing... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972403)

Seriously, MySpace?!

Re:Cuban is bluffing... (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41972435)

Seriously, MySpace?!

Dude, MySpace offered him a gigabyte of complementary bling .gifs for his page. That much ice is worth, like, ten zillion internet dollars.

Re:Cuban is bluffing... (1)

bfandreas (603438) | about 2 years ago | (#41973009)

Yes, but they do not give you rotating GIF green skulls and fancy "Under Construction" signs.
Too young for retro, too old for hip. It's like Justin Bieber in a zoot suit.

Not a bad deal (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972413)

1,000,000 users / $3000 = $0.003 per user

Re:Not a bad deal (1)

EMR (13768) | about 2 years ago | (#41973013)

1,000,000 users / $3000 = $0.003 per user

1,000,000 users / $3,000 = 333.333333333 users per dollar.

$3,000 / 1,000,000 users = $0.003 per user :-D

Re:Not a bad deal (1)

rockout (1039072) | about 2 years ago | (#41973053)

You're off by a factor of 100, but still, 30 cents is pretty cheap.

Low low price! (5, Funny)

zill (1690130) | about 2 years ago | (#41972419)

MySpace will charge you $3,000 to reach all 10 people who are still using MySpace.

Re:Low low price! (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41972641)

MySpace will charge you $3,000 to reach all 10 people who are still using MySpace.

Why pay that when I could just purchase a controlling interest in Myspace by digging between my couch cushions?

And nothing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972449)

... of value was lost.

But (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972451)

He has no quarems with his $60 million private plane that generates no ROI. But $3,000 that generates more revenue?! Outrageous!

Re:But (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 2 years ago | (#41972795)

If you read further, he's upset that it seems like the price varies and is per post. He'd rather just pay a monthly fee and post as much as he wants.

Re:But (3, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#41973317)

He has no quarems with his $60 million private plane that generates no ROI.

A private plane doesn't have to generate revenue.
Commercial or private, air travel costs time and money.
If you can reduce travel time and turn it into working time, that can be enough to tip the cost:benefit ratio in favor of a private plane. /.ers make the exact same argument about IT every day:
It costs money, but it makes everyone more efficient, which generates revenue, which justifies the expense of IT.

Mark Cuban is a chump (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972479)

Has that guy ever produced anything of value? No, he has not.

Re:Mark Cuban is a chump (1)

Cassius.Bilbao (893851) | about 2 years ago | (#41972919)

Are you employed, sir?

Re:Mark Cuban is a chump (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 2 years ago | (#41973271)

Are you employed, sir?

DING! DING! DING!
You are Mr. Jeffrey Lebowski, I claim my Coke!

No. He helps administer the charities now, and I give him a reasonable allowance. He has no money of his own. I know how he likes to present himself; Father's weakness is vanity. Hence the slut.

Re:Mark Cuban is a chump (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41973307)

Mark Cuban got rich selling "tv.com" domain name to Yahoo for two billion dollars. He then bought a sports franchise. He has not and never will produce anything innovative or useful.

MySpace? (4, Funny)

hduff (570443) | about 2 years ago | (#41972487)

So the Mavs will be offering nude player pics and I-Pod playlists?

"FB Trying To Fight Spam"... yeah, sure. (4, Interesting)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#41972495)

From TFA

Facebook constantly tinkers with EdgeRank to make it more effective, says product manager Will Cathcart. The algorithm change in September was a bigger change than usual, Cathcart says, but its goal was simply to cut down on spam in people's news feed.

FB: "Unless you pay for delivery, we'll be fighting your spam".

End result:
* the "network socialite" doesn't actually "socialize" anymore - it's advertising
* the others will still be served spam

Must be that FB is really desperate for revenue.

Re:"FB Trying To Fight Spam"... yeah, sure. (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#41972683)

Of course, I find it amusing that FB is more than willing to inject ads into people's FB page ... so I can only assume those people are paying.

They're also likely getting met with "WTF is this crap doing on my Facebook page".

I'm kind of hoping Facebook really starts to piss off people and we see an end to this whole social media craze where everybody wants everything to work like Facebook. Even stuff internal to companies is moving in that direction, and it isn't as useful as the people pushing for it like to believe.

Re:"FB Trying To Fight Spam"... yeah, sure. (1)

cripkd (709136) | about 2 years ago | (#41972949)

Facebook doesn't inject ads into YOUR facebook page.
The newsfeed is not YOUR page, the PROFILE page is and they are not adding ads to that.
The newsfeed is just what it sais, a list of "news" from the sources you chose, kinda like choosing a tv channel and watching their news. Where they inject ads into your... time spent there.

So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972503)

How is this news? Company A not happy with Company B's product/pricing, considers switching to Company C or maybe D. Happens a million times every day. Now, if several BIG companies would leave - not whine about it, actually leave -, that might constitute news. /. the next fail whale?

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972927)

If you want better stories on slashdot, you can start by submitting some yourself.

Advertising rates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972521)

A CPM of $3 is not all that outrageous, when you look at it from an advertising perspective. It is actually a fairly low price for targeted advertising. Other social networks offering greater reach at a lower price (i.e. free) is, in my opinion, an unmaintainable situation.

That being said, I don't really care. Social media advertising, and social networks for that matter, are a fucking sham.

Why do companies use FaceBook anyway? (5, Insightful)

magic maverick (2615475) | about 2 years ago | (#41972541)

I don't understand why companies and individuals with a "brand" are so willing to put that brand behind Facebook's. E.g. webcomic artists who say, "see this Facebook exclusive comic", or companies that have Facebook exclusive deals. They should be using Facebook to drive people towards their primary site, not use their primary site to drive people towards a third party who doesn't really care about them, and that may disappear within the year (or whenever a new website comes up).

So all these brands that are on Facebook and not pushing people off Facebook are doing it wrong.

Re:Why do companies use FaceBook anyway? (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41972639)

No one really wants to browse a corporate site unless they are applying for jobs.

I think $3,000 is a great deal for NBA fans who are looking for Maverick tickets. Same is true with selling custom merchandise. People like to read things that interest in them in their facebook unlike common disruptive advertising we do not give a shit about. If we didn't care we would not have liked it etc.

The facebook likes increase means you can market to a greater audience. If you people just went to your regular website then you couldn't (in your comic book example) advertise your new series as effectively. With Facebook & Youtube a few $5,000 here or there can generate $300,000 in return in more revenue. That is a great ROI if you ask me?

In addition, most people who are not poor have DVRs now and fastforward commercials. They see more advertsing on FB than TV.

Re:Why do companies use FaceBook anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972809)

No one really wants to browse a corporate site unless they are applying for jobs.

True, but does anyone want to browse the corp's Facebook page?

Re:Why do companies use FaceBook anyway? (3, Funny)

Thud457 (234763) | about 2 years ago | (#41973333)

It's kind of creepy that some corp will give you stuff if you "friend" them.
Like that rich kid in school that nobody really actually likes.

Re:Why do companies use FaceBook anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972909)

No one really wants to browse a corporate site unless they are applying for jobs

That says more about the corporate sites than people's browsing preferences. For companies that already have a recognized brand, if they build it, people will come. If people don't come, then the site was badly designed for attracting people.

Re:Why do companies use FaceBook anyway? (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about 2 years ago | (#41972921)

Because more "likes" makes the brand stand out more on facebook, and more users find it. Some of those users end up becoming more customers, which ends up in "more profit".

Re:Why do companies use FaceBook anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972981)

You're wrong- potential customers spend hours perusing their fbook feeds, that's where you want your brand to be.

Re:Why do companies use FaceBook anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41973119)

I don't understand why companies and individuals with a "brand" are so willing to put that brand behind Facebook's. E.g. webcomic artists who say, "see this Facebook exclusive comic", or companies that have Facebook exclusive deals.

Easy:

1. Facebook sets up a "site" for them. As far as these people know, this is deep, dark, evil voodoo that mere mortals cannot possibly comprehend, and they're giving them a discussion area where they can say things to other people!!!!!1! And it's FREE!
2. Also as far as these people know, the entire world can be split into two groups: People who use Facebook and the unwashed inferiors who, after enough pestering, will use Facebook. Thus, they have an eventual advertising market of the entire world, with inconveniences only happening to the flawed individuals not yet on Facebook who, as just mentioned, are simply inferior human beings who deserve said inconveniences for not using Facebook.
3. Hey look how many friends and likes our brand has! It's a large number! :-D HAPPIES
4. These people are very, very stupid (or have no choice but to trust and follow the orders of a marketing department who is very, very stupid).

Re:Why do companies use FaceBook anyway? (1)

corychristison (951993) | about 2 years ago | (#41973173)

Facebook is a great 'buzz' generating tool... especially if you are willing to put some money into it.

Yes, drive the traffic to your site as many Corps do (a good example is 7-11 or Subway)... they offer contests and post them on their facebook pages and market the hell out of it (not just on facebook), in order to:
1) gather your information (through the contest signup) in the event Facebook does fall off the face of the planet and market research and
2) keep their brand on your mind

The customer thinks "Ooo! Free stuff! Must enter contest!" and the brand sits in the back of their mind... so after they hit the bong later and get the munchies, Subway or 7-11 comes to mind.

Mr. Cuban is doing something wrong.

I think he's confused (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972543)

I think he's confused over the dynamics at work here. The fans aren't on Facebook because the Mavericks are there, the Mavericks are there because that's where the fans are. Moving to another service isn't really an option.

CPM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972557)

I wonder how deep Mark usually gets on the ad buying level, $3,000 for 1,000,000 impressions is just a little over a $3CPM, which is pretty much the industry rate.

what ever happened to hosting your own site? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#41972567)

Then he would be beholden to no one (except maybe google).

Re:what ever happened to hosting your own site? (1)

tgd (2822) | about 2 years ago | (#41972745)

Then he would be beholden to no one (except maybe google).

A billion users on Facebook happened.

Re:what ever happened to hosting your own site? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41973195)

A billion users on Facebook happened.

But 950,000,000 of those are fake and 49,000,000 of the rest haven't logged in for six months.

Facebook is just so 2010.

Re:what ever happened to hosting your own site? (1)

Cassius.Bilbao (893851) | about 2 years ago | (#41973069)

The infastructure needed to host your own site (to any meaningful degree) is a major detractor. Plus the genuine risk of getting flooded or worse, especially these days, makes a free website with much of your community already in place is a big plus for them.

PIPA and SOPA may not go far, but censorship is already here because most people like to hang out in only a handful of places.

It's going to be like the rail industry in the old days. Only a few sites will control access to destinations.

Everyone goes where their products are? (1)

FictionPimp (712802) | about 2 years ago | (#41972569)

So Mr. Cuban thinks that if he goes to myspace his fan base will follow? Somehow I doubt it. The reason he is on facebook is because his fan base was on facebook, not the other way around.

Re:Everyone goes where their products are? (1)

tftp (111690) | about 2 years ago | (#41972705)

So Mr. Cuban thinks that if he goes to myspace his fan base will follow? Somehow I doubt it.

I'm not a member of anyone's fan base. However if I were, I would easily open a free account with yet another social network to keep track of what's happening with my precious.

This would be doubly so if the orders to switch come direct from my Gods (such as the people who I am a fan of.) Besides, what fans are pressed for time and cannot be bothered to register at a web site?

Block it at the firewall (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972573)

It is easy to block Facebook at the firewall [howtoforge.com] . It also gets rid of the dozens of trackers embedded in all kinds of surprising pages.

Dirt cheap. (1)

westlake (615356) | about 2 years ago | (#41972577)

He is complaining about a $3,000 media buy that reaches a targeted audience of 1 million?

Re:Dirt cheap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41973229)

Agree. I don't even have a facebook account (or a slashdot account, for that matter), but 0.3 cents per recipient is much less than the USPS is charging and probably much more effective as well. What's best is the facebook is opt-in: those messages are actually desired. Isn't that an advertiser's dream?

Control your brand (1)

Minter92 (148860) | about 2 years ago | (#41972597)

Here's a crazy idea. Instead of letting a third party, that sees you only as a money source, control your brand. Make your own site and control your brand. I really don't get companies using facebook at all.

Re:Control your brand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972763)

Because that's where the potential customers are. It's more productive to put an ad in a shopping mall than in a forest.

Re:Control your brand (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41972815)

Also the case of outsourcing here makes sense.

Not in looking for worse workers for cheaper prices, but rather use someones speciality.

FB knows marketing and advertising and will do that for you so you can focus on managing your sports franchise. For that tiny price you hit a mass market that you could not do yoruself unless you run expensive TV ads, which again is outsourcing to the TV industry etc.

Oh I Remember How This One Ends! (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 2 years ago | (#41972599)

The social network wanted to charge him $3,000 to reach 1 million people.

McBean [wikipedia.org] I mean, Zuckerburg walks away with all the money from the Star Bellied Sneetches!

Three-thousandths of a cent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972605)

3,000 / 1,000,000 = 0.003 per person.

That's the price to reach someone who isn't already following the Mavs on Facebook.

Since Mark took Yahoo for 9 billion when he sold broadcast.com to them, maybe he's especially cognizant of being overcharged himself for something that may not be worth the price.

Re:Three-thousandths of a cent? (1)

3dr (169908) | about 2 years ago | (#41973167)

Using units, that's $3000 / 1e6 people = $3 / 1000 people = $0.003 / person = 0.3 cents / person.

So no, not three thousandths of a cent, but 300 thousandths of a cent.

But, whatever. I'm surprised to hear him complain of a price like this, considering running a TV ad, or a mailing will be at least 25 cents/person.

Re:Three-thousandths of a cent? (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 2 years ago | (#41973281)

If I understand the story correctly, thats the price to land a post on person's page if they are already liking the Mavs. It doesn't get them more likes.

I don't think this is going to work... (2)

fredmosby (545378) | about 2 years ago | (#41972709)

I don't go to Facebook to see advertisements. So obviously I'm not going to switch to a different service to see his ads.

I think something is missing here... (2)

coastal984 (847795) | about 2 years ago | (#41972725)

Forgive me if I'm incorrect here... But Facebook isn't trying to charge him to post on his page with 1 million fans; Facebook is trying to charge him for "promoting" [read: advertising] his post more prominently in peoples timelines and around the site. I don't have a problem with this. You let Facebook's news feed dynamic work for free just like everyone else, your you pay up to reach others. Why is he pitching such a hissy fit over advertising not being free?

Re:I think something is missing here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972893)

Why is he pitching such a hissy fit over advertising not being free?

Because the hissy fit is free advertising for him? After all, he made it to the Slashdot front page. He wouldn't if he just paid the $3000 to facebook.

Re:I think something is missing here... (3, Informative)

buchalka (416106) | about 2 years ago | (#41972957)

Forgive me if I'm incorrect here... But Facebook isn't trying to charge him to post on his page with 1 million fans; Facebook is trying to charge him for "promoting" [read: advertising] his post more prominently in peoples timelines and around the site.

I don't have a problem with this. You let Facebook's news feed dynamic work for free just like everyone else, your you pay up to reach others. Why is he pitching such a hissy fit over advertising not being free?

Facebook are now charging you to get access to your own fans per post, this is not extra advertising. Whenever you post something on facebook only a small subset will get your content injected into their news feed unless you cough up the extra money so that more/all of them see it.

This is something they only added a few months ago. They want to charge this every time you post as well.

So I don't blame him for getting a bit upset at least here as this is something that facebook have taken away e.g. it was free and now they charge for it. To be fair though, they never gave you 100% coverage of your posts into fans feeds before, but now it's a really low "free" coverage and you have to pay to get the vast majority of people who are already following you to see your content.

Re:I think something is missing here... (1)

cripkd (709136) | about 2 years ago | (#41973095)

Are you sure you don't mean that facebook will ask for money so that your post stays longer and higher on people's newsfeed?
So now my posts won't reach all my 150 friends you're saying? Is this documented somewhere?

Re:I think something is missing here... (2)

buchalka (416106) | about 2 years ago | (#41973181)

Are you sure you don't mean that facebook will ask for money so that your post stays longer and higher on people's newsfeed?
So now my posts won't reach all my 150 friends you're saying? Is this documented somewhere?

This applies to pages e.g. fan pages that you have Liked and followed. When someone posts something to a fan page, everyone who is following that page does not automatically get the content in their newsfeed. You can see this if you have a page as it shows you the coverage. Facebook give you an option to "pay for more coverage" e.g. let more people already following you see your content.

For your own posts to your friends I am not sure about that. I believe they might all get it. Not 100% sure.

Cheers

Tim

Re:I think something is missing here... (1)

cripkd (709136) | about 2 years ago | (#41973287)

I always thought that the Get More Coverage option meant that people that have NOT subscribed to my page will get my post, as an ADVERTISEMENT, based on some algorithm where at least they target people with that interest (as my page).

Re:I think something is missing here... (1)

RanCossack (1138431) | about 2 years ago | (#41973251)

Oh, wow. I was wondering why my news feed suddenly had less spam; the guiding hand of the free market was keeping it away! Thanks, capitalis--

This seems really strange. "Yes! I am the product, so they have to pay for it."

"starting with mine" (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#41972805)

Starting?

Aww, can't spam 15% of the species for free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972881)

Should keep the spam down on Facebook.

I see whatcha' doin' there, Facebook! (1)

cripkd (709136) | about 2 years ago | (#41972887)

EdgeRank, really? To determine what posts reach which users? So you change 2 letters and you're trying to position yourself as a tech company that uses algorithms to better serve your users?

On the other hand either Cuban is overreacting or I'm missing something.
Facebook didn't "asked" for $3000 so that he can message 1mil friends. Facebook proposed that he paid $3000 so that his posts can sit higher on people's newsfeeds, for longer and maybe for people not even on his list. He could have said no and just posted to his 715,237 (I checked) subscribers. Each method has it's ups and downs, the one facebook proposed was just going to be, well, promoted more (with a small text next to it saying "Advertising" or something. ).

"primary" site on facebook? (3, Interesting)

Heebie (1163973) | about 2 years ago | (#41972947)

How stupid are you in the first place? Your primary "site".. your primary online presence.. should be YOUR OWN WEBSITE. This has been a marketing no-brainer since the mid 1990's. DUH.

Bigger problem for the little guy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41972959)

It would be one thing if Facebook was trying to extract some money from the large corporations using Facebook to freely promote their brand. But it's a much bigger problem than that. I was first made aware of this when a friend of mine who is a local musician started hearing from his fans that they weren't getting some of his posts. He relies on his Facebook page to let people know when and where he is playing next. Like most people he assumed that anyone who Liked his fan page would get his posts. Now Facebook is trying to shake him down every time he makes a post. The thing is, his page only has a couple of hundred Likes. This isn't advertising. I'm perfectly okay with paying to reach new potential customers/fans but just to post to your timeline? Ridiculous!

Boo fucking hoo (1)

Rix (54095) | about 2 years ago | (#41972983)

Commercial users are being expected to pay extraordinarily low commercial rates. Someone call the Wambulance.

Re:Boo fucking hoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41973257)

$3000 to reach a million people genuinely interesting in your product is insanely cheap.

"Genius" takes all forms (0)

gavron (1300111) | about 2 years ago | (#41973005)

Mark Cuban has been at the right place at the right time for lots of things, including Real Networks.

He's also missed the boat on several, but can afford to do so, as he's shown with HDnet and the Dallas Mavericks.
[Don't get me wrong, I love NBA basketball, just that his "investments" in both are duds.]

Now he wants to move his properties from the hottest sites on the web to the hottest sites of 2003.
I wish him well, and perhaps he and his influence can bring Myspace back into meaningful-land.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING that you'd think a successful businessman like Mark Cuban would
realize is that Facebook *DOES* charge $3,000 because they *CAN* charge $3,000 because they
*DO* provide a value for it.

Best wishes to Captain Dunsel.

Ehud

Facebook snake oil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41973047)

Yes, facebook is overvalued
Yes, facebook does not have a real growth model
Yes, facebook is just another website

No it is not the holy grail for big data

Takei (1)

Jerslan (1088525) | about 2 years ago | (#41973103)

George Takei has made similar posts. Facebook wants to charge him for the amusing lolcats and whatever else he posts. When he posts about his book? Yeah, then it makes sense to charge him, but for the other stuff? Not so much.

His current solution was to tell everyone to add his page to their "interests" and then you start seeing his posts in your news-feed again.

Article about both Cuban and Takei's frustrations [allfacebook.com]

As a Consumer, I hate the new "promted post" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41973121)

I follow brands on facebook I want to keep in touch with. With the new promoted posts, only a small set of fans get to see the news updates. I have to go to each fan page individually to see posts.

I noticed this when I was waiting for the Warrior Dash to post when the photos would eb ready. I found out they did post, I just wasn't included with facebook's choice of fans. As a consumer, this frustrates me and I'm ready for someone else to take over in the social media world.

Myspace... (1)

YesDinosaursDidExist (1268920) | about 2 years ago | (#41973131)

"New Myspace" -- Pass....

so let me get this straight. . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41973141)

. . . Cuban has a state-sanctioned MONOPOLY on Dallas sports entertainment, raking in money hand over fist at TAXPAYER EXPENSE. And he's bitching because Facebook is a de-facto monopoly, and is putting the squeeze on him? Cry me a river.

Re:so let me get this straight. . . (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 2 years ago | (#41973293)

So you prefer one monopoly to another...nice....

Keeping out spam (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 2 years ago | (#41973231)

This is a good thing. If it's more expensive than other options, then Facebook won't be too ad-riddled for a couple years yet.

Wait... (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 2 years ago | (#41973265)

People pay for things on Facebook? Who knew....course this new strategy by Facebook might have something to do with their stock and trying to prove to investors that can actually generate revenue...

MySpace! (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 2 years ago | (#41973277)

Good one.

Facebook - Snore; Mark Cuban - Snore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41973279)

Really? Who cares. NEXT.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?