Site blames Facebook changes for their collapse

[porina]

Quote

Lifestyle site Little Things says it has had to close after changes to Facebook's news feed algorithms "decimated" its business.

The closure of the female-focused publishing business will result in the loss of 100 jobs.

The company focused on a mix of "feel-good news" and videos. Since launching in 2014, it attracted 12 million followers on Facebook.

But the company said Facebook's changes had been "catastrophic".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43225987

 

The site might not be one most of us have ever heard of, but it is the general situation that is interesting. 12 million Facebook followers is a huge number, but it seemed they were dependant on Facebook to drive their site. Algorithm changes to prioritise friend content over others reduced their exposure significantly, leaving them in an unsustainable situation.

 

For comparison, LinusTech has 600k Facebook followers, but the prime focus is Youtube where there are over 5.3M subscribers. Also LMG has 19 people listed on their website (Luke not included), well short of the 100 from Little Things.

 

I'd twist it around a bit, is it correct for them to blame Facebook, or alternatively did they fail to work out a backup plan? Recognising that Youtube is a very different site from Facebook, could they have maybe transferred some of those 12M followers onto Youtube? Maybe even find more subscribers who might not frequent Facebook, as I do know many who wont touch Facebook. Maybe it isn't a fair comparison, but they had a large number of staff relative to followers, compared to LMG. Did they over expand? If they kept going with smaller staff, could that have remained sustainable?

 

The other concern is, are there other sites, or Youtubers, who might be at risk of a similar situation? There are many who are heavily dependant on Youtube, and there is already the adpocapalypse in progress. Alternative income streams like Patreon are popular.

[Crunchy Dragon]

Honestly, I would say it's on the company for not having a good business plan. They could have gone on Patreon to help bring in money to keep their business going, but chose not to. Another thing that definitely would've helped would be going on YouTube or Instagram to help drive their business and exposure instead of relying on Facebook.

 

I'm not saying they're wrong to use Facebook as their primary exposure, but they should've had a backup plan or another place ready to go in case there was a problem.

[TacoSenpai]

I certainly wouldn't out rule that Facebook's whimsical algorithms could have detracted traffic or in their word's "decimated" them but I do think as a business the fault is with them in the end.  If you are truly serious about being successful in that world you have to find out how the algorithms favor content. This was why more people started doing the dreaded 10:04 long run-time videos on youtube because of them promoting longer run-time videos for more ads. As a response more creators started doing that for better or for worse.  Also putting all of your eggs in one basket almost never pans out for any business much the less it being Facebook of all things.

[mynameisjuan]

How is this at all facebooks fault? Its not their job to market your business for you. Its up to you to use FB as a tool to do that. 

 

Maybe the company should learn to be a better business and not have built their off success of others. 

[Biggerboot]

I think if your entire business revolves around the algorithm in the first place you're setting yourself up for failure eventually.  Continuing to play the algorithm game probably went against the fundamentals of their business. 

That's not to say who's right or wrong here, just the nature of the beast.

[Energycore]

11 minutes ago, porina said:

 

I'd twist it around a bit, is it correct for them to blame Facebook, or alternatively did they fail to work out a backup plan? Recognising that Youtube is a very different site from Facebook, could they have maybe transferred some of those 12M followers onto Youtube? Maybe even find more subscribers who might not frequent Facebook, as I do know many who wont touch Facebook. Maybe it isn't a fair comparison, but they had a large number of staff relative to followers, compared to LMG. Did they over expand? If they kept going with smaller staff, could that have remained sustainable?

Facebook changes are the cause, but Facebook are not to blame. Every company is responsible for the risk that their market becomes unfavorable.

 

If Facebook failed to make these algorithm changes public, then you can say that some blame can be put on Facebook, but not all.

 

This is my opinion as someone who doesn't know much about law, but presumably knows something about responsibility.

 

Edit: If this page had paid for facebook promotion and said promotions underdelivered compared to their advertised efficiency, then perhaps they can file a complaint but the best they'll get is the money they paid back.

[mr moose]

I don't think business should be on facebook anyway.   Just like I don't think politicians should be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Levisallanon]

Just took a look at their site (trough the way back machine) and I can imagine why they where depended on facebook.  The lay-out of the site is horrible and it's really not nice to navigate etc. So I can imagine they where depended on links with clickbait titles being posted and shared on facebook.
So I'd say good riddance :).

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I don't think business should be on facebook anyway.   Just like I don't think politicians should be.

Or anything, really

 

Just now, Levisallanon said:

Just took a look at their site (trough the way back machine) and I can imagine why they where depended on facebook.  The lay-out of the site is horrible and it's really not nice to navigate etc. So I can imagine they where depended on links with clickbait titles being posted and shared on facebook.
So I'd say good riddance :).

Your contempt aside, the company made the mistake of putting all their eggs on the facebook basket. Instead they could have made an effort to diversify the way they present their content which would have meant that the facebook losses are still bad, but not bankruptcy bad.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Energycore said:

Or anything, really

 

lol, Whilst that might be for the best, I don't mind purely social stuff.  And to be honest I don't mind ads on the side.  It's just interactive business and politics that make the place cancer. 

 

[kirashi]

10 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

How is this at all facebooks fault? Its not their job to market your business for you. Its up to you to use FB as a tool to do that. 

 

Maybe the company should learn to be a better business and not of built their of success of others. 

19 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Honestly, I would say it's on the company for not having a good business plan. They could have gone on Patreon to help bring in money to keep their business going, but chose not to. Another thing that definitely would've helped would be going on YouTube or Instagram to help drive their business and exposure instead of relying on Facebook.

 

I'm not saying they're wrong to use Facebook as their primary exposure, but they should've had a backup plan or another place ready to go in case there was a problem.

As someone who manages social media for a few clients, I can 100% say it's up to the company using Facebook for their business to devise a content marketing plan that works for the particular platform they're using. If Facebook wants to change their algorithm's to better suss out fake or clickbait content in favor of more natural content people actually want to read, that's up to them - my clients don't own or operate Facebook, so it's not their call on how Facebook chooses to display advertising or natural content.

[silberdrachi]

So they made some money off gaming the Facebook algorithm to post a bunch of stories, failed to diversify their revenue streams, really hook their core audience, and when the algorithm changed they failed to adapt. Sounds like any number of businesses that hit it off with one good thing, and then crash and burn because of crap planning/management/accounting.

 

Ill be honest, i use a lot of media sources for my news and entertainment. And if something changed in the algorithm in my RSS feed, or some other site, i doubt id notice or care. There are so many sites out there all putting out similar content that its pretty rare that i actually take notice of what site im on. So on some level i understand their problem, but thats a risk you take in the market. Its on you to mitigate that risk by getting your name out in as many places as possible and driving traffic to your own site or network.

[Energycore]

Just now, kirashi said:

As someone who manages social media for a few clients, I can 100% say it's up to the company using Facebook for their business to devise a content marketing plan that works for the particular platform they're using. If Facebook wants to change their algorithm's to better suss out fake or clickbait content in favor of more natural content people actually want to read, that's up to them - my clients don't own or operate Facebook, so it's not their call on how Facebook chooses to display advertising or natural content.

Would you know whether Facebook has an obligation to disclose whenever they change their public algorithms? That's what interests me the most. Because of course, a company is responsible for their fuckup, but if Facebook were to change something big without disclosure, this would affect a lot of businesses, not just the ones that don't know how to adapt.

[kirashi]

17 minutes ago, Energycore said:

Would you know whether Facebook has an obligation to disclose whenever they change their public algorithms? That's what interests me the most. Because of course, a company is responsible for their fuckup, but if Facebook were to change something big without disclosure, this would affect a lot of businesses, not just the ones that don't know how to adapt.

Nope, no obligation at all. Nada. Zip. Zilch. No responsibility at all. What so ever. Same as literally any piece of software you use. Including this forum. If using this forum causes your house to burn down, dog to die, or car to explode, Invision Power Services has no liability to you, LTT, your dog, or your insurance company. I am not a lawyer, but as long as EULA's hold up in court (and sadly, in most cases, they do) no piece of software shall ever be held liable for losses or undesired outcomes as a result of using the software. That being said, it does seem that whomever has more money has the ability to twist the law to their whim, so one certainly could attempt a case against a software company with a zero liability clause in the EULA and still win.

 

You'll find the following snippets taken straight from Facebook's Self-Serve Ad Guidelines linked this page: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

Quote

6. We will determine the size, placement, and positioning of your ads.

7. We do not guarantee the activity that your ads will receive, such as the number of clicks your ads will get.

8. We cannot control how clicks are generated on your ads. We have systems that attempt to detect and filter certain click activity, but we are not responsible for click fraud, technological issues, or other potentially invalid click activity that may affect the cost of running ads.

The other interesting thing to note is that the following clause technically means that blogs claiming to explain how the algorithm works could be subject to banning from using the Facebook platform because they're attempting to describe their relationship with Facebook's advertising platform.

Quote

12. You will not issue any press release or make public statements about your relationship with Facebook or the Facebook Services without our prior written permission.

 

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, kirashi said:

Nope, no obligation at all. Nada. Zip. Zilch. No responsibility at all. What so ever. Same as literally any piece of software you use. Including this forum. If using this forum causes your house to burn down, dog to die, or car to explode, Invision Power Services has no liability to you, LTT, your dog, or your insurance company. I am not a lawyer, but as long as EULA's hold up in court (and sadly, in most cases, they do) no piece of software shall ever be held liable for losses or undesired outcomes as a result of using the software. That being said, it does seem that whomever has more money has the ability to twist the law to their whim, so one certainly could attempt a case against a software company with a zero liability clause in the EULA and still win.

 

You'll find the following snippets taken straight from Facebook's Self-Serve Ad Guidelines linked this page: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

 

I'd love to see that play out in an Aussie court.  Picking a winner would be like having the pay out on the GG's. 

[kirashi]

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'd love to see that play out in an Aussie court.  Picking a winner would be like having the pay out on the GG's. 

Oh absolutely - same here in Canada. I don't think these types of cases get huge publicity because our digital laws are still based off junk from the 1980's that's no longer relevant in our current digital age. The closest type of case to EULA suits are those carried out by the MPAA and RIAA regarding copyright infringement. Whether it's ethical or morally correct is not up for debate; content creators indeed deserve to be paid for their work.

 

However, the suits against those who circumvent DRM or reverse engineer products are already decent examples of consumers vs. content licencors & distributors, which I welcome more of so we can show content producers that consumers have rights to watch or listen to content they have legally bought a license for, even if it means breaking the DRM protection or other hardware / software protection systems. It's not exactly the same thing as EULA liability suits, but since it too deals with software in our digital world, it should help move things forward.

[Thony]

I had to stop at “5.3 million subscribers”. It blows my mind. I started following Linus while he still worked at NCIX and had barely 100K subs. Now its 5M+ and 19 employees !!! Incredible achievmemt living off youtube. 

 

Im so Proud of him  he is a nice dude.

[Zodiark1593]

22 minutes ago, Thony said:

I had to stop at “5.3 million subscribers”. It blows my mind. I started following Linus while he still worked at NCIX and had barely 100K subs. Now its 5M+ and 19 employees !!! Incredible achievmemt living off youtube. 

 

Im so Proud of him  he is a nice dude.

And he diversifies reasonably well too. Even if LTT gets demonotized by Youtube, he still has sponsors to fall back on. Then there's Floatplane Media. Linus seems to be an up and coming Media Mogul.

 

[Eaglerino]

Kinda their fault for relying solely on Facebook, and 100 employees? There's YouTube channels with less people and more subscribers than they had followers. Sounded doomed to fail

[asus killer]

it's not easy to grow a normal business in 3 years to a point of having 100 employees. That should be a sign this were not exactly sustainable growth.
What amazes me the most is that they don't even try to do their business in any other way, "oh well so facebook doesn't give us page views for free, best close shop and fire everyone".
100 people can't came up with a alternative plan to at least try? This is laughable, i'm sorry but it is. Companies with this mentality should not even exist. My take is that they know their content is shit and were only living of click bait.

[captain_to_fire]

12 hours ago, porina said:

For comparison, LinusTech has 600k Facebook followers, but the prime focus is Youtube where there are over 5.3M subscribers. Also LMG has 19 people listed on their website (Luke not included), well short of the 100 from Little Things.

I want to ask, does Facebook now allows monetization of videos after the "Facebook is stealing videos" controversy.

[captain_to_fire]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

I don't think business should be on facebook anyway.   Just like I don't think politicians should be.

It's a place for free advertising. That's how I found my previous apartment back in 2015.

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

It's a place for free advertising. That's how I found my previous apartment back in 2015.

The reason I don't use facebook is almost solely because my news feed was getting clogged up with links to wellness websites selling woo and fraud. people selling all natural herbal supplements to cure cancer, autism and cleanse the body of those deadly vaccines .  All the shit you can't advertise elsewhere because it's illegal and for good reason.    Half the reason we have so many issues with government and conspiracies and fraud is due to misinformation being easily spread on said platforms.  Basically anyone with something to sell can make themselves look professional on the internet and then facebook gives them access to millions.   

 

And this is before we even contemplate all the misinformation politically, the shit that people post as real that effects elections.  You don't need Russian interference to vote in the wrong president, you just need facebook and a half dozen people spreading lies.

 

 

[NMS]

Good. Facebook is a social media website, not a news outlet. At least that's what it used to be back when I used it 10 years ago or so.

 

Now? It's pure ****

[captain_to_fire]

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The reason I don't use facebook is almost solely because my news feed was getting clogged up with links to wellness websites selling woo and fraud. people selling all natural herbal supplements to cure cancer, autism and cleanse the body of those deadly vaccines .  All the shit you can't advertise elsewhere because it's illegal and for good reason.    Half the reason we have so many issues with government and conspiracies and fraud is due to misinformation being easily spread on said platforms.  Basically anyone with something to sell can make themselves look professional on the internet and then facebook gives them access to millions.   

 

And this is before we even contemplate all the misinformation politically, the shit that people post as real that effects elections.  You don't need Russian interference to vote in the wrong president, you just need facebook and a half dozen people spreading lies.

Nowadays I just open Facebook just to look for notifications then close the tab afterwards. But yeah I see similar Facebook shenanigans from people tagging me to join multi-level marketing scams to buy and sell questionable herbal supplements or people whining about things they do not understand like politics. I even uninstalled it on my phone.