Telegraph & the FB Rape pages
There was a story today in the Telegraph.
This section caught my eye.
Campaigners on both sides of the Atlantic have now switched their attention to businesses as they believe Facebook is inclined to allow the pages to continue because of the viewers and hence advertising revenue they bring in.
"Facebook will only listen to money, so we are now targeting the advertisers who have appeared on their pages,"[..........]"We are delighted with the response of companies like John Lewis that pulled their ads."
Major companies that advertise on Facebook were furious to discover that their advertisements were appearing on the "rape page" and demanded they be removed. They included Barclays, 02, John Lewis, Sony, BlackBerry, American Express, Groupon, Heinz, National Lottery, the White Company and PepsiCo.
After complaints from several businesses to Facebook, the "alleyway" page was "whitelisted" last week, meaning that no adverts could be rotated on it.
Why is this a useful example?
It tells us that Facebook don't really care what people think. We can pester OBB as much as possible, they are managing the situation between them (Ch5 & FB) as this weekends' cull proves. If FB can allow this loathsome page (and similar) to exist, us moaning about OBB tactics won't cause them any lost sleep.
What do FB care about?
Money. How does that help us? No posting, no advertisers, no FB.
Will the OBB campaign bear any fruit?
Only if there is publicity. The press have had 5 weeks to pick up on it; it is not generating many column inches.
How do we get publicity?
We need to stop writing on the wall and write to the sponsors. All that is happening is that profiles are being removed as fast as they are created. Very soul destroying and effort wasting.
Campaign steps?
We need to bring our list of key players (advertisers and major execs involved in various decisions) up to date and push now.
Why now?
Because BB are increasingly vulnerable as viewing figures are falling. Voting may bring revenue to the table for Ch5 (if there is any voting) but unless there is a sizeable audience the advertisers wont want to pay.
I am in for whatever you need me to do.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can see it, the goal here is to bring Channel 5 to it's knees, and to let them know that "the customer is always right".
When you mention money, how can FB and Ch5 and BB all lay claim to revenue when the very people they are alienating, are the same people who PAY?
This is "Business 101". Make the customer happy.
When you get as big as Facebook, THEN and only then can you 'name your price' and generate money just by blinking. Channel 5 is NOT Facebook, nor will it generate even a 0.001% of the money that FB gets. As the rating numbers fall, so will Channel 5.
We just need one more nail for their coffin.