New and Improved Ways to Market on Facebook?? Or Just Another Annoying Advertisement?

Promoting brands seems to be Facebook’s up and coming tag-on to its current marketing strategy, which seems to be doing quite well anyways.  “Sponsored stories” are now going to be built into different elements of Facebook user pages and will find ways to be more visible more often.  The whole goal of adding “Sponsored Stories” is to even further connect Facebook users and add on an extra element to the concept of viral marketing (developing a spider-web-like dynamic).  By connecting brands and stories with people and multiple users, exposure become drastically increased and also becomes associated with people and what they do. 

They say that by incorporating the “sponsored stories” into user interactions and applications (likes, location check-ins, page posts, etc.) that Facebook is hoping to capture the “word of mouth recommendations and endorsements that are happening across Facebook every day…and increase distributions of those.”  But is it really possible to capture word of mouth marketing?  Isn’t that messing with the entire essence of word of mouth?  Maybe it isn’t; maybe this is the future of marketing in places where marketing already exists and is somewhat saturated.  Facebook seems to always be on the forefront of new and improved social media and maybe, just maybe, they have found a way to capture “word of mouth.”

Article and Reference: http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/digital/e3i2e55ccc3a708918b261b7213cc452295

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to New and Improved Ways to Market on Facebook?? Or Just Another Annoying Advertisement?

  1. sasamao says:

    I’ve never been an avid user of Facebook, but I feel that this new method of marketing to consumers can generate conflicting responses. On the bright side, online advertising is made effortless and more convenient than ever, allowing users to become ‘citizen marketers’ within their social circle. In one click, we are able to locate the hottest spots, items, and trends in the market. At the same time, our privacy is invaded and these new features may be more intrusive than they are beneficial. If the goal for Facebook is to be ‘consumer-friendly’, the direction the site is taking seems to be more ‘stalker-friendly’. Is it worth trading our freedom and privacy for a more interactive, invasive viral-marketing future? And as far as traditional word of mouth goes, I feel it already left the building with the arrival of the Internet…’sponsored stories’ will only make it fancier.

  2. menewell says:

    The whole idea and concept of a “sponsored story” is an interesting one and one that is here to stay, but I think it goes against the grain of what consumers are used to. Historically consumers have been able to read stories that are for the most part un-biased with no hidden agenda about a company or product, but those days are no longer. Consumers have to be skeptical about everything they read, see or hear on TV, radio, Internet and even their cell phones. With that said and with the increased level of skepticism do you think it is harder for marketers to win over customers and get their message out to the masses?

    • hillgren says:

      I definitely think that it is now harder for marketers to win over customers, and that increased levels of skepticism should be of big concern to the people in the marketing industry trying to win over a particular target audience or consumer. In today’s world there is so much “fluff stuff” and information overload that no one really knows what to believe anymore or who to trust for valid, trustworthy information. You bring up an interesting point that “sponsored stories” could become a force in the marketing realm, but the level of impact to and by the customers may be limited due to their steadily increasing skepticism.

  3. bephelps says:

    In response to menewell: I think stories have always been biased. News outlets, certainly in today’s world, are open about promoting particular agendas (think Fox News). I do however think that sponsored stories take this in an entirely different direction. To me (like the title of the post suggests) they are just advertisements. I don’t think they will create a great deal of “word-of-mouth” endorsement. Instead I think they are just a relatively inexpensive new advertising mechanism.

  4. Shelley says:

    I am not very familiar with facebook, and so far I did not be anoyed by this new “Sponsored stories” . But I feel it looks like the bicon which facebook used several years ago. That is if people buy some thing on Amazon, the facebook will show that the person bought this product. I think this is the way facebook making money. When we sign up for an account on facebook, we did not to pay for that. So the way that facebook make money is through advertisement. I am OK with that. Because they provide the service for people to communicate. Other wise, people can choose not use facebook in order to prevent their private.