When Facebook announced last week that it will soon become more difficult for brands' page posts to appear in the news feeds of their friends, fans, and followers, the outcry was predictable. This was the latest move, many brands asserted, in Facebook "forcing" them to buy ads to reach their rightful audiences.
After all, the thinking goes, news feed post appear only the in the feeds of people who hand-raised to follow the brands. So any incidence of Facebook filtering, editing, or otherwise controlling which posts are seen, and by extension, which are not, is pay-to-play statement.
On the one hand, that's true, in part. Facebook is a business. Its monetization model is ad sales, and that's the way it works. Of course it wants brands to buy ads.
But what Facebook also wants and needs even more than it needs ad revenues is users. Facebook researched user complaints that their news feeds were ringing too commercial and promotional. Upon probing deeper, the company learned users weren't complaining about actual ads so much as they were complaining about the brands that they follow on the platform. Posts were too click-here-buy-now, and loaded with promotional calls to action.
So Facebook will now institute a system that requires actual humans to check the quality of brands' news feed posts for overtly commercial, promotional content. If the human factor deems posts to be to promotional, they'll plummet like stones in organic results.
Quality score. Organic feeds versus paid placement. If this vocabulary sounds familiar, it should. By checking feeds for quality and determining whether or not they appear prominently (or at all) in users' feeds, Facebook has just taken a page from Google's playbook. Google, as you'll recall, applies this selfsame human evaluation technique not to organic search, but to ads. Actual human beings evaluate search ads based on a number of criteria such as copy, landing page, call-to-action, etc. The ads that Google deems higher in quality are positioned more prominently (i.e., higher) on the search results page.
And of course, Google famously has algorithms to determine the relevance and ranking of organic search results. In no small part, these criteria center around content that is well-crafted and well-written, relevant, useful, shared (i.e., linked to), and credible.
There's something fascinating about Facebook doing for organic what Google is doing for ads, isn't there?
There's also a lesson being reinforced here, namely, there's a difference between organic content and advertising copy. Between owned and earned media (content and social) and paid media (advertising).
Media are converging, but the medium also determines the message. It's fallacious to blindly accuse Facebook of trying only to sell more ads because they are trying to up the quality of the news feed. The same accusation was (and continues to be) lobbed at Google when brands' organic search results suffer: "They're just trying to make us buy ads."
Both Facebook and Google aren't going to turn away your money. But the fundamental reason brands are prepared to pay money to advertise on both these very different platforms is because of the size and breath of the audiences they can deliver to advertisers; audiences they wouldn't be able to build or maintain without a steady stream of content those audiences are eager to return to consume again and again.
The takeaway from Facebook's adoption of a quality score (let's just use Google's term for it) is that brands must learn to distinguish between advertising content and content marketing content. The latter is never overtly commercial in nature. It's pull marketing -- the marketing of attraction, rather than push, the marketing of interruption. Content requires very different skill sets and strategies than does advertising.
Facebook's decision in this arena doesn't just do its users a service. Ultimately, it's doing a favor for brands, too, by helping them to make this important distinction.
On Twitter? Follow iMedia Connection at @iMediaTweet.