[HN Gopher] Facebook buying ads for Messenger to be top result w... ___________________________________________________________________ Facebook buying ads for Messenger to be top result when you search for 'Signal' Author : ffpip Score : 186 points Date : 2021-01-10 20:29 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | leoplct wrote: | I wonder why not using a chat based on BitTorrent protocol? | christiansakai wrote: | We are seeing the end of life of Facebook. After Apple, now this. | This company is gasping for life. | rajman187 wrote: | Interestingly I see an ad for Tiktok when I search for WhatsApp | annadane wrote: | Fuck you, Facebook. | | Edit: Don't flag me. Fuck you too. It's a perfectly legitimate | comment. | aluminussoma wrote: | I click on the ads of products I dislike so that the company gets | charged for the ad. If you wanted to inflict the maximum damage, | then click on the ad and install the app. Uninstall it later. I | think the ad gets charged more as a "conversion". | jmholla wrote: | Sadly with Facebook,you can't be sure they won't install a | backdoor application that will reinstall it after you uninstall | it. That may just be some phones with Facebook and Messenger | preloaded though. | mcintyre1994 wrote: | Yes you can be sure that they're not doing that on iOS. | drops wrote: | If it's a company as big as Facebook, I think those charges are | drops in the ocean of their entire revenue, so you waste more | of your time and nerves on doing that than the money they lose. | endymi0n wrote: | While you're technically correct, you're also making a | conversion right there, which increases your ad relevancy score | on most auction driven platforms including Google and -- | ironically -- Facebook, which in turn leads to this ad actually | getting _cheaper_ to run for the advertiser on other customers | coming after you. | | I'm not in deep enough to tell you whether that's a net loss or | benefit, but it's probably close enough to zero... | fossuser wrote: | This is incredibly obnoxious and Apple should ban it. | | I've seen it for any popular app - at best it's a tax apple is | charging apps to protect themselves by buying ad slots for their | own name. | | At worst it's an attack on old people. | | Whenever I see it I think less of the company trying to | manipulate less technical users. | monokh wrote: | This practice is called "Brand bidding" and is actually extremely | common among competitors. Occasionally companies will mutually | agree to not participate. | | It's actually surprising why it's not perceived to be more | hostile. | giarc wrote: | Ya this is kind of a non-story. They were probably bidding on | 'Signal' prior to this current set of events anyways. And since | Signal doesn't appear to be bidding on it's own name, Facebook | is probably paying very little for that top spot. | srfvtgb wrote: | I don't know if this is still the case, but for a while the | easiest way to get the best deal from Dominoes was to search | Google for Pizza Hut with your adblocker turned off. | jonas21 wrote: | It's possible that Facebook isn't intentionally targeting Signal. | | When buying App Store ads, the default is to use a "broad match" | for the keywords you enter -- i.e. Apple automatically decides | what keywords are similar to the keywords you selected and runs | your ads against those as well. | | It's pretty annoying because there's no way to switch the default | -- you have to remember to put your keywords in brackets to | disable it -- but probably great for Apple's revenue. | MKais wrote: | Whatsapp displays 404 not found when I send a link to Signal | https://www.dropbox.com/s/0t5venwty2oe2re/Screenshot%202021-... | stabbles wrote: | can't reproduce | godelski wrote: | For what it is worth, I cannot reproduce | srfvtgb wrote: | Seems like a pretty blatant antiturst violation if this is | happening consistently. | ve55 wrote: | It would be weird that they'd make it display a 404 though. | It's possible Signal could be returning that when they see FB | perform a request to them for some reason (e.g. want to make | sure no metadata leaks to FB). | MikusR wrote: | They are a private service and can do whatever they want. | edit: I am just repeating the narrative I have seen on HN the | last couple of days. | mattnewton wrote: | Assuming you are referring to the current wave of private | censorship in the wake of the storming of the US capitol, I | think it's a false equivalence. | | Here people are arguing this looks like monopolistic | behavior (that the law attempts to make illegal); and there | people were arguing for allowing de-platforming (that the | law could be read as encouraging to limit the liability of | the platform). This analogy erases the nuance that might | make one desirable to society and the other undesirable. | newbie578 wrote: | Well played. It is their platform, I don't see a problem in | what they are doing. If someone doesn't like it, then use a | different one.. (that is the narrative, right?) | quadrangle wrote: | Your comment could be read as suggesting that private | companies are above the law. | | I assume you mean just "this particular sort of anti- | competitive behavior is legal because it's all within their | private service". | godelski wrote: | More importantly it would mean the link previews aren't | e2ee. ,, _BUT_ '' I cannot reproduce the error. | folli wrote: | Copying my comment from another thread: | | I'm getting slightly fatigued with this point of view ("X | is a private company and can do what it wants"). | | If a company reaches a certain size and has a quasi- | monopolistic position so that other people or companies | depend on it, it starts to have some degree of | responsibility towards society that's beyond value | maximization for shareholders. | mhh__ wrote: | Unfortunately they operate in the US so they can't | | https://youtu.be/gRelVFm7iJE | fsflover wrote: | Not if they are a monopoly. | firloop wrote: | Haven't tried reproducing, but it's possible they just "don't | support" this. | | Facebook also "doesn't support" these sorts of links (at least | to Telegram, Snapchat, others) on Instagram: | https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/03/instagram-starts-blocking-... | JMTQp8lwXL wrote: | App linking (URLs that open apps) doesn't work in Messenger. | You have to press-and-hold the link, tap "Open in Safari", and | then safari will redirect to the app. Terrible UX. | ericmay wrote: | I find this to be a bit strange from a marketing perspective and | the cost to run this campaign has to be non-trivial. If someone | searches for Signal, what is the likelihood they don't already | know what Facebook Messenger is? What is this ad supposed to | convince someone of? Like you see the ad after searching for | Signal and go "oh I have Facebook Messenger"? | | I guess maybe there might be some who don't know about Facebook | Messenger and so they heard about this new Signal app and now | they see a new chat app that works with Facebook. | | I'm sure there's analytics and testing behind the decision to | support it. | Klonoar wrote: | FWIW, I can tell you my father goes with whatever's in the ad | 99% of the time. It's led to some... interesting... situations | to fix. | | But there are absolutely people like this, and FB makes money | off of them in droves. | ALittleLight wrote: | Users who click on ads are probably the best users to have. | g_p wrote: | I wonder if there's automated ad purchasing going on here, | bidding against the keywords of the top app names in relevant | categories? | | It seems that Facebook bidding on Signal keywords is unlikely | to gain them much, as those searching for signal right now are | very likely going there expressly to escape from Facebook, and | are searching for a specific brand name already. | JMTQp8lwXL wrote: | Facebook has the cash to burn, even if it's a less-than-stellar | marketing decision. My guess is this is a short-lived | advertising campaign to protect the moat during this heated | moment. | bigiain wrote: | Deep down, I hope this has nothing to do with a "marketing | decision", and is just a hail-mark "Fuck, look at all the | people fleeing WhatsApp since we announced the privacy | changes? We have to do _something!_ What're we gonna tell | Zuck?". | | (Sadly, in spite of the noise in my personal social bubble, I | suspect the number of users departing WhatsApp over that is | so small it's completely indiscernible from regular churn...) | marcinzm wrote: | Cynically I'm guessing it's for potential new users who have | heard of Signal vaguely and inducing brand confusion. "Oh, | Signal is part of Facebook Messenger, cool, already have that." | throwii wrote: | New-old word: brand confusion | hnick wrote: | I was curious about this from a trademark angle (it seems | against the spirit of the law if not the letter) and | apparently it's generally permitted to show ads based on a | brand keyword as long as the ad itself does not contain any | trademarked terms or images. I don't personally agree with | that but it supposedly been tested in a few courts. | dbrgn wrote: | It's common practice in Google Adwords to book your | competitors' keywords. | | It's also common to book political ads in newspapers that | will be placed next to articles discussing that topic. | | Whoever pays most, gets that screen/paper space. | yread wrote: | It does make Signal's own ads more expensive. | | I miss the old Google layout where it was crystal clear what is | an ad. Nowadays, you can't even blame normal people that they | don't notice the tiny "Ad" | mcintyre1994 wrote: | Do Signal buy ads against their own name in the App Store | though? Despite adding Google-like search ads, Apple haven't | broken search and they're always the first organic result for | their name, so I don't see why they would want to. | colejohnson66 wrote: | What's _really_ annoying is searching for an app and it | shows up in the search suggestions but _doesn't exist_. For | example, search "Red Robin" in the App Store and there's a | suggestion for it. But what shows up... Robinhood (with a | DoorDash ad above it). | dave_sid wrote: | Has anyone recently tried searching for 'Signal' to check this? I | don't see any Facebook Messenger ads personally. Think this is a | bit of marketing from Signal. | adonese wrote: | This actually reminds me of Tim Sweeney's tweets regarding stores | policies[1]. | | [1]: | https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/101985252700794470... | saagarjha wrote: | App Store Ads are genuinely awful. I have yet to find any that | have been anything but spam apps or companies buying their | competitor's keywords. They quite definitely make the App Store | worse. | marcinzm wrote: | I'm guessing that for the app store team everything except the | ad revenue is in essence a cost center. The company makes money | from it but it's not tied back to the app store team or not | tied back directly enough. Ad revenue however is tied back | directly. So they optimize the KPI they are measured on. | bigiain wrote: | > everything except the ad revenue is in essence a cost | center | | Really? | | Seems a very strange thing to think, particularly in a thread | mentioning Epic games, who've chosen to allow Fortnite to be | delisted from the app store in protest over the 30% | commission the store takes on their sales... | | My suspicion is that ad revenue in Apple's app store is | insignificant compared to revenue from paid app commissions. | (I do have nothing except gut feel and some probably obly | vaguely informed opinion to base that on...) | Jakobeha wrote: | "Ah, yes. I'm looking for a peer-to-peer, secure messaging | system. What's this, Facebook Messenger? Maybe I'll try that | instead." | | In all seriousness though, this kind of advertising should not be | beneficial to Facebook. You're telling a group of people biased | not to buy your product, to buy your product. There's obviously | some other reason. | laurent92 wrote: | When I'm annoyed with an ad, I love clicking on it, especially | since a click can cost from $.5 to $12. Also, upon clicking, | they build a profile of me based on products I don't like, so | all the better. | | Tough for the advertiser, but maximizing advertiser | dissatisfaction is also in my interest (at least since I don't | advertise anymore - after an important realization that I had | poured money into it for very few actual new customers). | the_pwner224 wrote: | https://adnauseam.io/ | Apocryphon wrote: | Could use of this be detected by the ad networks and get | filtered out? | bigiain wrote: | It _could_... | | But the ad networks get paid for those clicks, so while | businesses keep buying ads from a known[1] mostly | fraudulent industry, they will not. | | 1: "Uber discovered they'd been defrauded out of 2/3 of | their ad spend" -- | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25623858 | renewiltord wrote: | It's usually detected by anti-click-fraud stuff (since | it's the same UA, cookies, and IP that's mass whacking | ads, it's the easy case). However, the users of the tool | occasionally intend to punish the publishers (people who | put these ads on their sites) which does happen for some | low volume publishers - like your buddy's blog with | AdSense and stuff. | wizzwizz4 wrote: | Set it further towards the "rarely" setting, and this is | less likely. | Judgmentality wrote: | This sounds like cutting off the nose to spite the face. | Sure, you _may_ be harming the advertisers, but you are | directly reinforcing the ecosystem that creates those | annoying ads in the first place by telling them you like | those ads. | | I hate ads too, but let's not pretend like this childish | rebellion is actually self-serving. It's like me saying I'm | upset with politics so I'll show the world by not voting. | oever wrote: | That $.5 to $12 goes to big tech. That's only a win in the | case of very vile advertisers. | viraptor wrote: | Given the current mass (for some values of "mass") migration, | there will be some people who have very low tech knowledge but | read enough about migrating to signal and WhatsApp being bad, | that they'll search for "Signal" and will try the first | communicator that comes up. Not sure if they will be fooled for | long, but still... People are fooled by basic spam and they | will be fooled by this. | throwii wrote: | People who can figure this out are not the target. | gotem wrote: | Jesus no one here seems to understand how ad targeting or bidding | works. | st1x7 wrote: | This is kind of embarassing. Do you guys think that the people at | Facebook who make these decisions realise how pathetic it looks | from the outside? Or are they somehow justifying it in their own | heads? | minhazm wrote: | I would assume they've been doing this for a long time. Lots of | companies do stuff like this. If you're against this then you | have to be against basically all search ads. You can go search | for Venmo or Cash App now and you'll see ads for some other | banking products. | Apocryphon wrote: | It definitely seems like a policy that should be reexamined. If | you're a newcomer to a market and a big entrenched player buys | up all of the search ads with your product's name, how can you | hope to be discovered via SEO? | minhazm wrote: | Ads are pretty clearly highlighted as such at the top. If | your SEO is good then you will still be at the top, just | below the ads. | | I do agree that a lot of these companies do have the ability | to use advertising to crush their competition, but I'm not | sure what the solution is to that. | suyash wrote: | lol that's funny..it will make people like me more inclined to | install Signal than every before. | Ekaros wrote: | I don't think they are targeting users who have ideological | stance. But the average people searching for the new thing they | hear about... | CitizenHeat wrote: | "If your only tool is a hammer, then every problem is a nail." | dylan604 wrote: | This is one of the major reasons that I don't believe search ads | are worth anything for any but the largest of players. There will | always be someone with a larger check book, especially if you are | just starting and bootstrapping your thing. The playing field is | always tilted in the direction of the larger player | DeafSquid wrote: | Well, let's all search for Signal and waste Facebook's ad money | throwaway7281 wrote: | It's funny, if it weren't that sneaky and scuzzy and very much in | line with what FB excels at: web scale deceit. | iphorde wrote: | The FBI, Google, Facebook, ... are working with congress to | change Signal, and other apps. They want a backdoor. | | See Christopher Wray's testimony in Jan 2020. I'm sure this will | be accelerated. | oliwarner wrote: | Our great-grandchildren are going to look back on history and | struggle to understand why we used a search engines that | intentionally accept bribes to poison their SERPs. | | I hope we can get this right one day. Allowing trademark | squatting helps nobody but scammers (and search engines). | Grimm1 wrote: | Hear hear. | chrischen wrote: | As a relatively small business with no clout we've had to deal | with fly-by-night operations violating our trademark with | Google ads (basically randoms running ads that look like they | are from US when people search our web domain) and Google not | doing anything because we didn't register the trademark. Of | course Google won't do anything--it'd hurt their bottom line! | marcinzm wrote: | As I understand it, if you didn't register the trademark then | it's not your trademark legally except as a defense against | lawsuits. So Google seems to have followed the law. Better | than them becoming some sort of extra-legal arbitrator of | quasi-trademarks. | mehrdadn wrote: | It seems difficult to do this in general when so many search | terms can have multiple meanings. Are you suggesting there | should be human review for every ad? (Which is not saying it's | necessarily a bad idea; just trying to understand how you | imagine it'd work.) | VWWHFSfQ wrote: | I think a lot of people here will say that there should be a | decentralized "global" index that any search provider | frontend can source their results from. I'm not sure exactly | how that would work. But the goal is to separate advertising | from the search index itself. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-10 23:00 UTC)