MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT FACEBOOK'S USER BASE--("Data does not align with USA Census")--WHEN WILL ADVERTISERS BEGIN TO CARE?
Why is the below revelation not a surprise? (Quote from "Business Insider"):
"Facebook touts its platform's massive reach as a draw for advertisers, but the company's figures don't match up with 2016 U.S. census data, according to a note from Pivotal Research Group analyst Brian Wieser cited by Business Insider. Specifically, Weiser found that Facebook says it can reach 25 million more people than are recorded in the census to exist."
For those of you who tend to follow my prior postings, you'll recall that one of my favorite themes is Facebook's highly questionable user base. (Please review my prior analytics on the World's 7.0B population estimates vs Facebook's nonsensical claims of over 2.0B active members). Why nonsensical? Facebook admits that only (approx) 45% of world's population even has access to the Internet. Thus only approx 3.2 B could possibly use Facebook. Correspondingly, Facebook admits that "over 1.0B current Internet users in China & India, are blocked from accessing Facebook." Ok, lets then subtract 1.0B from the above max-possible-universe of 3.2B. That gives us, by Facebook's own admission, a max possible user base of 2.2B. Now lets also remove the Internet countries which block Facebook, such as Iran, North Korea, Bangladesh--and others. Subtract another 300million. Minimum. You get the picture. I suppose the adjective of nonsensical may be a bit over-the-top, when describing Facebook's approach to analytics. But, now, after seeing this analysis from the USA census studies, I think that nonsensical may be the right word, after all.
On that subject, you know what might be equally nonsensical? Its the fact that numerous growth-challenged Consumer Marketing Brands continue to allow their agencies to pump precious shareholder marketing dollars into what appears to be, an ROI-resistant sink-hole. Never before in our lifetime, has an advertising medium, attracted so much of marketers' money, after having created a business model which appears to have orchestrated-fraud as a mainstay of that medium. The TV medium did not knowingly make up shows, and viewers of shows. The magazine industry did not intentionally fabricate magazines with non-existent subscribers. And they both had outside, impartial auditing partners, to ensure transparency. But, with social media, and its equally unscrupulous partner of programmatic ad serving, intentionally-orchestrated fraud, appears to be a fundamental part of the business model. OK, lets give them the benefit of the doubt. If its not intentionally orchestrated fraud, there appears to be a great number of our Nation's supposed best & brightest within this entire social media ecosystem, who are "looking the other way." (Take any Ethics courses in college?) Yet, brand CEO's continue to allow, even enable this. While growth of their brands continues to stall. And while they allow their CMO's to continue to outsource their jobs, to the very agencies (and partners) who are reaping the windfalls. And most troubling, is the fact that far-too-many, consumer brand CMO's continue to view the retailer as the enemy--when in fact, within this new world order of marketing, the in-store, rich-content-marketing medium, may be the only ROI-assured medium left?
(John McNulty; CEO-Didgebridge)