Why Social Ads Don’t Work

by Joshua Porter  |   56 Comments

There’s been lots of talk recently about the ineffectiveness of advertisements in social media properties like MySpace and Facebook. During their recent quarterly earnings results, Google explained that they are not making as much money from ads on social network sites as they had predicted. Even though this was a blip on an otherwise stellar quarter, Google’s stock took a serious beating.

Why is this so? Why is it that Google monetizes so well on Search while having a hard time on social properties? Given an equal amount of views on Google vs. MySpace, shouldn’t they be able to get about the same number of click-throughs and thus ad revenue?

The difference, of course, is that when people go to Google, they’re actively looking for something. That something isn’t on Google. They are performing a search activity. Thus their task will be to click on a link that seems to promise what it is they’re looking for. It may be the organic results, or it may be an ad that seems close to what they want.

When people are on MySpace, the activity they’re doing isn’t search. It’s something akin to “hanging out” or “networking”. Their task is almost the opposite of search. They are already on the site they want to be on. They don’t need to click on links to take them where they want to go.

In other words, the context is entirely different. When you’re in search mode, you are playing by different rules.

Social ads don’t work as well because people are being social, not searching for something.

Advertisements live along a spectrum that goes from “irrelevant and distracting” to “relevant and interesting”. When ads are well-placed, they actually serve to help the user find what they’re looking for, or they’re interesting enough to grab the person’s attention away from whatever else they were doing. It would seem that this is what social ads have to do…they have to be interesting enough to get you away from socializing. Or, perhaps they are simply for brand-building purposes…you see the brand and it has a subconscious effect…you don’t change what you were doing but the brand is somehow strengthened in your mind from the ad impression.

Here’s a question: What if the activity you’re doing actually does determine your willingness to click on ads? This is what is being suggested by the early returns on ads in social networks. If this is so, then we can start by making a list of activities in which it would make sense that people are most accepting of ads.

  • Searching
  • Shopping
  • Traveling

These activities all share something in common. People are on the move, and are actively looking for products and services to help them along their way.

There is a reason why Google wants super short time-per-visit and Facebook wants super long time-per-visit. It’s because the services support two completely different activities. Google wants a tremendous number of incredibly short visits. They want you to find good results immediately and leave the site. Facebook wants you to stay forever.

A fundamental problem with monetizing social sites is that the very reason why they have long time-on-site that makes them less effective places for advertising. They have provided a comfortable third place…people are already where they want to be!

Social network audiences are less like searchers and more like homebodies. The ads that will work best aren’t those where people have to leave the site, but those which allow you to stay and keep hanging out. But trivial things like games and contests can only be novel for so long…

In addition, since we are dealing with social capital as much as economic capital, the advertisements don’t make as much sense. Imagine if every time you talked with your friends they were trying to sell you something. They wouldn’t last long as your friend.

Facebook, in particular, is pushing the envelope here, as well they should, and hopefully learning a lot along the way. I hope, also, that we can learn from what they’re doing. My big takeaway so far is a renewed focus on the activity at hand. What activities people are engaging in says as much about their behavior as their innate constitution.

This might also suggest why Yahoo and Microsoft have a harder time monetizing their ads on their various properties. They’re trying to monetize ads on Mail, Groups, and other places where people are doing non-search activities. That’s why Google continues to rule the roost, because they have the most searchers. People, when they want to search for something, go to Google. Google = Search.

No matter how well Microsoft thinks it can monetize Yahoo’s non-search properties, it won’t be able to do as well as if it had more searchers coming to its site. However, Yahoo does have some interesting travel properties, so those should provide better results. I’m sure that these companies know down to the nano-percentages which types of properties work and which don’t. I would bet that it all depends on the context of use within those properties.

In terms of design, which is our focus, what does this mean? Well, it means that we need to investigate what contexts people are in as they use our web applications. Are they looking for something, or would they use our service as part of the activity of looking for something? Are they primed for ads? If not, then we’re better off providing value in some other way, like increasing productivity, etc.

This simple list also suggests why Google is investing a ton of energy into mobile, because when people are mobile we’re in unfamiliar places with the same old needs. We’re searching not only for our destination, but services that will help us along the way. So that’s why every time you turn around there’s some new quiet feature in Google Maps, because maps and mobile are the future of advertising.

Comments ( 56 Responses so far )

1.  billhd on February 10th, 2008 (Comment) #

Great article, Josh! I’m going to have some of my students read it in class, as we are about to talk about my favorite topic: activity.

:)

I gave them my well-practiced spiel on FAQs and why they are a successful web genre…all about activity. The aim is to get them asking this question: What does the genre do that suits users so well?

Your take on ads in social-networking site is a great follow-up to that!

2.  Sarven Capadisli on February 10th, 2008 (Comment) #

Josh, what you are saying seems quite reasonble and I tend to agree.

Question: how do the revenue from ads at myspace differ then say an average blog’s ads? Hypothetically, if the return is low (click-thru) shouldn’t we see a much lower success from ads on blogs?

3.  Joshwa on February 10th, 2008 (Comment) #

@Sarven:

It’s about SERPs. The reason blog ads monetize better than myspace is that blogs show up in search engine result pages. User searches, user clicks through to blog, user clicks ad.

The only hope social/app-oriented sites have with ad monetization is branding/influence ads, whose effectiveness can’t be measured by clickthroughs, or with truly *social* ad concepts (ala facebook fan pages) that become part of the app’s experience and don’t draw users offsite.

4.  Yunus Tunak on February 11th, 2008 (Comment) #

Great coverage of the current situation for the web ads.
I’m pretty sure that its very much the same situation for news portals. Their clicks per view are incredibly low.

Pingback: Caminews » Why Social Ads Don’t Work

5.  Lenen on February 11th, 2008 (Comment) #

Very interesting Article. I think the focus for social media advertising should be brand building, panel research, writing paid reviews etc etc. Applications like Facebook offer great insight in specific sections of your target groups. This could and should be very interesting information. The question is just how to convert this knowledge to commercial benefits.

6.  Adam Darowski on February 11th, 2008 (Comment) #

We’ve both written about the better chances of survival for specialized social networks. Seems like monetization through ads and sponsorship is just yet another way.

There are opportunities for better-targeted ads. Take a site like Dogster. This is a dream marketing opportunity for a company like… Pup-peroni. You know that the site’s entire user base has a dog. That’s some segmentation you just can’t get elsewhere.

There are better opportunities for sponsorship. Sure, let the people stay on the site and do their thang. But when they leave the site, they remember that you, the sponsor, were there to help make that experience possible. It is more of a brand relationship at that point. I realize it isn’t magic - it doesn’t always work out that way. It can take a lot of time and strategy.

But the holy grail would be achieving that NASCAR mentality: The “I’m gonna sit here and watch these cars go around in a circle 500 times… but when I’m done, you better believe I’m gonna go buy some Tide” approach.

7.  Dan Rockwell on February 11th, 2008 (Comment) #

I’ve often thought of the idea of Tag’sona’s or profiles of people solely by the tags they use in a tool like delicious. There I could see advertising as a potential viable thing because the site would see into my tags, see what moves me and thus tap into that sweet spot and maybe give me something that I’m interested in as well.

But the thought of ads in my bookmark or social network spaces just dont compute because i’m not looking for ads.

Now if you can rewire, re-represent those ads and make the appear to be of more value, more than just an ad, then that connected potential goodness they offer could have some merit.

Hanging out on social network like sites seems to vary as well I figure. My 17 year old niece spends 5hrs a day checking status of her space, her phone, her connected presence throughout the network. In glancing status, I doubt ads would connect unless they offered some rapid serving need, like insta-buy snickers bar at the checkout.

For me, I work hard to assemble all my networks, and all my feeds into as few streams as possible making my one to five glances a day to bring me the information i need unhindered by any ad presence.

The mobile plan makes sense but I dislike the idea of trapping and cashing in on users when they are most likely in need. If its presented as too much cashmoney pal come play with me vs real useful el powerful el you made a difference in my existence, it will not succeed.

Pingback: Social Network Advertising, Can It Work? - Covering All That’s Social All the Web

8.  Linda Sherman on February 11th, 2008 (Comment) #

Joshua,
Thank you for initiating a very useful discussion.

Pingback: The Many Challenges of Social Network Sites

9.  Zelnox on February 11th, 2008 (Comment) #

Nice article. Kind of ties in with a post on Fortuito.us about how ads really work for communities.

10.  D.W. on February 11th, 2008 (Comment) #

This got my brain humming. I think I’m already seeing this effect at work for our school. Our Google and Yahoo search ads are doing all right, but our mySpace ads (which are even full color with graphics compared to the other two) have dismal click-through rates.

Your article may be added to my ammo to get my boss to re-think our spending here.

11.  Scott on February 11th, 2008 (Comment) #

Josh,

I think that del.icio.us typifies your argument. The only advertisements to be found on the entire site are on search result pages (when they finally load). Why bother people with ads before we know that they’re open to being advertised to?

Ads on social sites are better for brand building, but not as attractive from an ROI standpoint.

Note to self - implement Google ads in search results on my site when I get around to programming the search feature.

Pingback: Biggest Threats Google Faces - Adding to Rand Fishkin’s Post

12.  pepelicious on February 11th, 2008 (Comment) #

Josh-

Thanks for covering this topic. I’ve read bits here and there on the Web about this subject now that social ads have been around long enough for some real data to emerge.

What you brought up about the ‘passive’ nature of being on Facebook compared to Google reminds me a lot of television. I watch my wife use the Internet, going from Facebook to MySpace, from LiveJournal to Yelp, from Perez to the Consumerist, etc. and it reminds me much of how I flick through TV stations, staying just long enough at one to see what’s interesting.

I think Facebook’s problem is that they haven’t yet created that environment where you do all of that in their space. They are still a TV channel though they’d like you to believe they are “Cable”. They are only a website but they’d like you to believe they are the Internet.

I think Internet users are much more savvy nowadays compared to users of old who thought that AOL *was* the Internet. They know that Facebook isn’t the only social network. They know that if there’s nothing going on in Facebook they’ll change the channel to MySpace and see what’s happening.

To add advertising in to this analogy, I have never purposely tuned in to a TV channel because of the ads. If I’ve been interested in purchasing something off of the TV it’s because I found a channel that was selling something that looked interesting (Magic Bullet rocks!). I do the same on the Web by going to Amazon of searching Google Products when I feel like I want to buy something.

Would it impress me if I was flipping through the TV channels and started seeing friends of mine endorsing products on every channel? After I locked all my doors and checked my phones for taps, I think I would really start to question my friends. And turn my TV off.

At the end of the day I’m happy that Facebook rolled the dice. Advertisers spent a lot of money trying to get this off the ground. The beast has been fed for now.

13.  Alex Mather on February 11th, 2008 (Comment) #

as usual, i agree.

another reason i believe the ads to less successful is a lot simpler. many (most?) facebook/myspace users have spent countless hours on these sites and their interfaces are burnt into the users’ memories. there are specific things users do on the site and they know exactly where to find them. its almost as if they could move their mice and click with their eyes closed.

users have an amazing ability to filter out ambient noise in places they frequent and i believe this also plays a part in the lackluster results of ads.

14.  Susan B. Barnes on February 11th, 2008 (Comment) #

At the Rochester Institute of Technology we have been doing research on Advertising and social networks for the past year. We have data that supports these ideas.

15.  Chris Brogan… on February 11th, 2008 (Comment) #

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that it’s hard to hear ads from our friends. It just doesn’t work well. Sometimes, it’s not *as* creepy, like when your friend uses a movie’s icons as avatars for their IM client or whatever (we get that, at least). Other times, like when a friend is attempting to build affiliate links on my back, that’s a different matter.

So what will be the middle ground? For a while, people were thinking that advertising on video TVs in Second Life was going to be cool. I dunno. Can’t I do that in Real Life?

Thanks for this post. It’s given me lots to chew on, and I want to know as much as the next guy.

Pingback: Pages tagged “creepy”

16.  Chas Edwards on February 12th, 2008 (Comment) #

Josh–I think that smart advertisers need to (and will) adjust the format of their messaging to better fit with social media environments. Just like TV ads don’t work well on radio, direct-response promotions (Google-style ads designed to get visitors to click on them) may not be the best format for social-networking sites. Federated Media (my employer) recently worked with Dell on a Graffiti contest within Facebook that sparked high interaction levels among a large subset of the Facebook population. Here’s more on the campaign’s performance, http://chasnote.com/2008/02/01/dell-goes-green-1000000-votes-for-dell/

Pingback: Max Design - standards based web design, development and training » Some links for light reading (12/2/08)

17.  Rhysickle on February 12th, 2008 (Comment) #

This is the first time I’ve seen anyone write what I’ve thought for a long time; the profit to be made in social networking sites is over-hyped as the ads just aren’t targeting people at the right time.

18.  Pressemitteilung on February 12th, 2008 (Comment) #

Thanks Joshua for covering this topic! For me, I work hard to assemble all my networks, and all my feeds into as few streams as possible making my one to five glances a day to bring me the information i need unhindered by any ad presence.

regards

Pingback: links for 2008-02-12 « Social Media Report

19.  Audrey Carr on February 12th, 2008 (Comment) #

You’ve hit the nail on the head with this one. Ads on social networking sites are more of an intrusion than traditional search based ads, especially those appearing on sites which we consider personal in nature (Facebook, MySpace). Despite what advertisers think, my Facebook account is MY personal space… please don’t bug me on it.

Rather than focus on ads, brands need to carefully consider the overall context of use within these social spaces and design useful or entertaining social applications that people want to share with their friends or post on their personal pages as an act of self-expression. No one wants to be advertised to, but they do want to take part in and share in an online experience with their friends.

20.  Chi-chi Ekweozor on February 12th, 2008 (Comment) #

Great post and one that neatly elucidates the difficulties associated with serving relevant advertising to users on social networking sites.

I think Facebook and MySpace are going to have to invest an incredible amount of money on targeting ads based on user interest *and* user activity because this is where they have an advantage over search engines.

If they know my interests *and* know what I’ve just done online, they can serve me highly relevant ads.

The question is, how creepy will this feel?

Pingback: A life in the River - February 11, 2008 | Athow.com: Internet, Media and Technology at its fullest

Pingback: BarelyBlogging » Blog Archive » links for 2008-02-13

Pingback: Must-Read Article: Why Social Ads Don’t Work « U B r a n d e r

Pingback: There is a place for everything (even advertising…) « Why just sit back and consume media, when you can lean forward and engage!

21.  Alex Gardner on February 13th, 2008 (Comment) #

Interesting topic. Doesn’t this really mean that advertisers will just have to raise their game to get attention in a social context?

I mean, advertising does occur in offline social environments. I can be sitting down the pub with a bunch of mates and we are bombarded with adverts from the beer makers and we usually don’t have a problem with that - mostly because in this context, the beer makers put their ads on very short dresses on very beautiful women.

I wonder if the first ads that appeared on TV also had this problem, in that they were too similar to their preceding radio ads and also didn’t work so well until they tested new formats.

Plus, I think that for every Google ad that doesn’t work on a social network site, there must be corresponding viral or referral advertising that is boosted by the same social network site.

22.  Ehren on February 13th, 2008 (Comment) #

Well-stated argument Joshua and I agree with you. When Facebook introduced their Social Ads, the first thing that people pointed out was the fact that it would not compete with Google Ads precisely because Google and Facebook are targetting people with different users doing completely different things.

It’s a gradual learning curve but marketers should have realized that marketing to people on Facebook would be very different because it is a different environment. Keyword: environment.

Pingback: Why Social Ads Don’t Work « schblog!

Pingback: Actually, social networks and their widgets are making money, thanks » VentureBeat

Pingback: Actually, social networks and their widgets are making money, thanks » VentureBeat

Pingback: Actually, social networks and their widgets are making money, thanks | BlogForward : Money

Pingback: Jorge Villabona » Blog Archive » Publicidad en Redes Sociales

Pingback: Social ads: non fungono ? « Marketing For Nerds

Pingback: The problem with online marketing in a 2.0 world… | winelifetoday.com

Pingback: links for 2008-02-15

Pingback: BlogBacker » Why Social Ads Don’t Work by Josh

Pingback: Are social ads no more effective than TV ads? | emergencemarketing.com

23.  Montoya on February 16th, 2008 (Comment) #

I hope no one interprets this to mean that advertising on social sites does not work. I can assure you that there are a lot of advertising formats that *do* work extremely well, Google text ads just aren’t one of them.

24.  Richard Morton on February 18th, 2008 (Comment) #

I think that advertising on social networking sites must work, or else the plug would have been pulled on them, after all, that is how they are paid for. In the end it is just a numbers game, and if enough people click on ads on your site then you are happy to keep running it.

25.  Julian Perera (Web Design Herts , UK ) on February 25th, 2008 (Comment) #

I quit agree with Richard , because if ads on social networks haven’t been working defiantly marketing on social networking has gone down. But in fact over the past year more and more social networking sites are doing good , and people are investing on them . The difference is Google , Yahoo or any other search engines are suitable for SMS to large corporate , where as social networking sites still into large organisations. Also Google must be using a reverse psychology to market their products and services .
Anyway what I feel is it’s not what people are looking for always, Yes Google is a target oriented media. But remember lot of uses are who are in the social networking sites are trying to kill time…so in my opinion there are certain amount of people who clicks on the adverts. Google are using the similer technique on their content networks (i.e via ad scene )

Pingback: Where Online Advertising Fails: The Future of Web Advertising - Profy.Com

Pingback: Pages tagged “gorilla”

Pingback: links for 2008-02-28 | Adam Crowe

Pingback: Simply my Blog » Il futuro dell’advertising online (classico) non è “social”

Pingback: Viernes sin email: por qué no funciona la publicidad en redes sociales | Rumorismo

26.  Tyler Yuniarto on March 10th, 2008 (Comment) #

I think the social web will actually help commerce and advertising. Here is a quote from Greg Sterling that I posted on my blog:

“Search is highly utilitarian and indispensable as a tool but it doesn’t help people make decisions among a growing range of competing options (on the broader Internet or even individual sites).

Community can by showing the most trusted or popular or best or highest rated options among a list. It can also expose information that we might not have otherwise known about or discovered on our own.”

The concept behind social ads in my opinion is pretty solid: people are more likely to trust the opinions of friends and people they know when it comes to picking vendors or buying things. Facebook Social Ads is a first attempt at this and I think we’ll see more innovations in the near future to leverage the social web for advertising.

Notice Facebook Social Ads is unlike the Google Adsense text ads you see on MySpace. In fact, in Facebook you can only see those text ads on the third-party apps made by RockYou, Slide and the like. So comparing the two directly for their monetization effectiveness will be a bit tricky.

27.  Paul on March 14th, 2008 (Comment) #

I thought they work. Just look at facebook. Its worth billions.

28.  Jeremiah Owyang on March 15th, 2008 (Comment) #

I think “ads” is the wrong state of mind, recommendations or actions or gestures make more sense.

Pingback: Die Crux der Social Networks | Werbeblogger - Weblog über Marketing, Werbung und PR » Blog Archiv » Die Crux der Social Networks

29.  networker on May 8th, 2008 (Comment) #

If what you say is true, why Facebook value has reached $15bn. Is it the hype or are they making money somewhere else.

Add Your Comment

Accepted tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> .

Preview...

If your comment contains links, or if it is your destiny, your comment may not show up immediately. I'll approve it as soon as I can. (I delete dozens of comment spams per day)

Get updated when someone posts a comment: Comment Feed


ABOUT

Bokardo is the blog of Joshua Porter, a web designer/developer, researcher, and writer. I live in Newburyport, MA, USA.

WHAT IS SOCIAL DESIGN?

Social design is design that focuses on the social lives of users. It deals with the activities, behaviors, and motivations of people who work and play together through software interfaces. It is built on the observation that many of the decisions we make are greatly affected by those we surround ourselves with in our social lives: our family, friends, and colleagues. Exploring our motivations and how to design interfaces to support them is what the Bokardo blog is all about.

Great Books about Design

The finest selection of hand-picked books covering all aspects of design.

Bokardo Design

Upcoming Events