The Internet (or at least the part frequented by marketers)
is suddenly abuzz with the realization that time spent online doesn’t necessarily translate into advertising revenue. No surprise the most-cited example is Facebook, which soaks up tons of
time but has only a fraction of the revenues of Google, with a smaller share of our online activity.
The reason for the difference, of course, is the way people use Facebook and Google -- specifically, the goals they have in mind when they visit the
site. When people visit Google they are going to search for something, and when they are searching for something, there’s a fair chance -- though far from certitude -- that they might be in
the market to buy something. Thus search provides a channel, and their search terms provide clues, for selling them something with paid advertising for products in that category.
By contrast, people who visit Facebook are doing so with the goal of -- well,
doing any number of things: catching up with friends, engaging in virtual agriculture, idly browsing strangers’ profiles, and so on. They are less likely to be searching for specific things,
less likely to be on the way to buying something, and therefore less receptive (in general) to advertising.
This is demonstrated by the fact that Facebook ads tend, on average, to have very low click-through rates. While it’s popular nowadays to
criticize click-through rates as obsolete, fraudulent, or otherwise inadequate, the fact remains that there is still no better way of gauging consumer interest in online advertising, or indeed
advertising in general. It’s what makes the ROI of Google search ads more measurable than, say, TV advertising -- and it leaves little doubt that both display and search
advertising on Facebook are relatively ineffective.
Ironically
the problem for Facebook is its own success, in my humble op-ed: by building such an effective forum for online socializing, Facebook has made a medium so compelling that it actually distracts from
the advertising placed against it. People are too busy hobnobbing or playing games to spare any thought for commercial messages delivered alongside. Even when ads are targeted with information
drawn from the user’s profile and online activity, the fact is the user is still simply less likely to be in purchase mode when they are on Facebook than when they are using Google, and
therefore less likely to pay attention to ads (however well-targeted).
Essentially, marketers have mistakenly assumed that there would be a halo effect, with interest in social engagement somehow spilling over to commercial engagement; in
other words, Facebook is fun, so it must be a good place to advertise. In fact, it’s the other way round -- a reverse halo effect -- as social engagement draws attention away from commercial
messages; by contrast, search -- not exactly a “fun” medium – is nonetheless very effective because, well, it works. The fact that less time is spent on search
overall is simply a tribute to its efficiency.
Is there a
solution -- some brilliant way to actually translate time spent online to advertising share? Please share your thoughts in the comments section!