Three 16.03: Meta REALLY wants you to believe them about news, Musk turns bitter on Lemon, and shining a light on ad platform refund practices.

Three brings you the three most interesting things in media and marketing every single week (now on Saturday).

This week: Meta REALLY wants you to believe them about news, Musk turns bitter on Lemon, and shining a light on ad platform refund practices.

ONE: More data shows that Meta is mistaken when it comes to news consumption on its platform

What’s new: Former Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway coined the term "alternative facts" when trying to defend factually incorrect statements that her boss really wanted to be true. Well, Meta last week published a blog post in the same genre seeking to both claim that its users weren't engaging with news content in any material way and it wasn't a driver of use, but in the same post taking credit for sending a staggering 2.3 billion claimed visits to news properties in Australia. Based on 80% of the population 12+ using Meta platforms this would mean every single visitor clicked on 158 news links and then visited the article last year. An amazing figure for an audience who don't really have an interest in news. Tim Burrowes today also uncovered ACMA data that found 48% of Australians used social media to access news, and that this figure had increased in the past year. This is consistent with University of Canberra data for the same period that found 50% of Facebook users regularly used it for news.

Why it matters: Meta is twisting itself in knots here. On one hand its seeking to brush of news and journalism as immaterial, but at the same time it's seeking to establish an argument about the value it feels it does send to news businesses. It is also choosing to gloss over other values this content has for its business and the wider AI race. Either way, it is concerning to see such a wide difference in what Meta is seeking to claim is true and what independent, reputable data suggests. Imagine that chasm of truthiness existing when it came to fact based, sourced news and content?

Marketer implication?: My view is it's not the responsibility of brands or marketers to take a view here. I also feel for marketers as they've already been shaken down in terms of building a bunch of community and customer service at the encouragement of Meta and then being told to access it at any reasonable volume level payment is needed to boost posts and be visible, as well as the Facebook pixel being required to collect data on their brands website and assets in order to access any sort of functionality. So in that sense, marketers face their own challenges with the platform. One thing you can't deny is Meta has built a very profitable business that is excellent at extracting revenue from its users and partners. As the fictional Bill Gates says on The Simpsons when he buys Homer's internet company, "I didn't get rich by writing a lot of cheques."

TWO: Musk puts the squeeze on Lemon

What’s new: Ex CNN host Don Lemon launched a new show this week. His big get was Elon Musk and Lemon pulled no punches when interviewing him. Elon had done the interview only because Lemon was airing his show on Twitter itself. Lemon asked Musk about a few areas the free speech absolutist bristled at, and then a few hours post interview he then fired Lemon and tore up his agreement for the show to broadcast on Twitter.

Why it matters: Musk is within his rights to fire anyone he wants, but he can't really do it whilst claiming he's a free speech guy at the same time. What this demonstrates is ultimately Musk has very little patience and resource for voices that don't speak the same way as he does. Weirdly, Lemon claims Twitter approached him to use Twitter as a platform for the show.

Marketer implication?: Marketers don't really care for Twitter, so this is not really an important thing for them ... but imagine this sort of rich guy funded and approved 'journalism' became more prevalent.

THREE: Platform "non transparent" advertising credits under scrutiny

What’s new: AdExchanger senior editor James Hercher has written a piece around increased frequency of Meta and Google advertising clients seeing advertising credits being issues into their accounts. According to Hercher "campaign misappropriation issues seem to be cropping up more frequently on both platforms, and it can be difficult for advertisers to know what really happened with their misspent budgets." The other challenge as outlined by Hercher is these are 'credits' and not 'refunds'. So under deliveries and bug related delivery issues are not being compensated with cash, they are simply credits that can only be used on that platforms advertising.

Why it matters: Hercher pulls no punches. "Ad credits would be fine if we were talking about an earnest effort at campaign reconciliation –?but that’s not what we’re talking about here. Instead, the ad platforms are misfiring and causing advertisers to unintentionally overspend by tens – or even hundreds – of millions of dollars . This money is going directly into Google’s and Meta’s respective pockets." He also shines a light on a Facebook ad client who had to take out a bridging loan to cover a bug related advertising issue when a bug caused her to incur $12,500 in ad spend in one day that delivered no sales. This merchant was on the hook for the $12,500 in cash (platforms don't allow their users to pay them in product credits, they only accept cash)

Marketer implication?: If this is happening to small/mid market advertisers at the frequency outlined in this article, the same thing is happening across large customers ... albeit with larger sums of money. Large marketers don't have the same cash flow considerations as small/mid market advertisers, but it sure does feel a tiny bit like an abuse of market power that these advertisers are both subject to the consistent bug related issues outlined in this important piece, as well as the refunds being non monetary credits that have low to no transparency in how they're calculated.