|
Post by clinton on Feb 25, 2014 9:38:00 GMT -5
Man I want obnoxious FB bulls to get hammered soon
|
|
|
Post by clinton on Feb 25, 2014 16:24:53 GMT -5
mwa ha ha ha ha
This Man's $600,000 Facebook Disaster Is A Warning For All Small Businesses Tyler Durden's pictureSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 02/25/2014 15:26 -0500
Google ratings
inShare 4
Submitted by Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
It continues to amaze me how people are completely ignoring what appears to be an incredible amount of shadiness inherent in Facebook’s business model. Whether or not this is intentional click fraud, it is clear that advertisers are not getting what they think they are getting. They won’t be fooled forever, and once they wake up to the money being wasted on fake “likes” and “clicks,” I’m curious to see what happens to their revenue.
The following article from SF Gate is a perfect followup to my post from a couple weeks ago: How Much of Facebook’s Ad Revenue is From Click Fraud?
Perhaps the most shocking passage from the entire article is the following:
Naturally, Brar began disputing his bill with Facebook. He wanted his clicks audited by a third party, to see how many were genuine. Then he discovered that Facebook’s terms of service forbid third-party verification of its clicks. That’s something all advertisers should be aware of before they spend a penny on Facebook. Facebook is different from the rest of the online ad industry, which follows a standard of allowing click audits by third parties like the IAB, the Media Ratings Council or Ernst & Young. Um, ok then…
Now more from the SF Gate:
Raaj Kapur Brar runs a small but successful empire of online fashion magazines from his base just outside Toronto. Some of his titles are huge online brands, such as Fashion & Style Magazine, which has 1.6 million Facebook fans. That’s more fans than Elle magazine has. Recently, however, Brar has fallen out of love with Facebook. He discovered that his Facebook fanbase was becoming polluted with thousands of fake likes from bogus accounts. He can no longer tell the difference between his real fans and the fake ones. Many appear fake because the users have so few friends, are based in developing countries, or have generic profile pictures. At one point, he had a budget of more than $600,000 for Facebook ad campaigns, he tells us. Now he believes those ads were a waste of time. Facebook declined multiple requests for comment on this story. Brar’s take is a cautionary one because Facebook has 25 million small businesses using its platform for one marketing purpose or another. Many of them are not sophisticated advertisers — they are simply plugging a credit card number into the system and hoping for the best. This is what can happen if you don’t pay careful attention to contract language, or the live, real-time results your campaigns on Facebook are having. Here’s how Brar believes it went down: He became interested in advertising on Facebook in 2012, and he took it seriously. He went to Facebook’s local Toronto office where he was trained to use the advertising interface. They set up the campaign, and ran a small “beta” test. Then, in late October Brar pulled the trigger on a massive push through Facebook’s Ads Manager. He used Bitly and Google Analytics to measure the number of clicks his campaign was generating. The results were disastrous, Brar says. Facebook’s analytics said the campaign sent him five times the number of clicks he was seeing arrive on his sites, which Brar was monitoring with Bitly, Google Analytics, and his own web site’s WordPress dashboard. There was a reasonable discrepancy between the Bitly and Google numbers, Brar says, but not the five-fold margin between Google’s and Facebook’s click counts. At one point, data from Facebook indicated his ads had delivered 606,000 clicks, but the site itself registered only 160,000 incoming clicks from Facebook, according to data supplied by Brar. (160,000 clicks is a not insignificant return. After all, these are not clicks on a mere Facebook page, these are users who clicked through to an off-Facebook site.) “I don’t know what to say, right? This is a huge loss. This ran for four days, then we just stopped the campaign,” Brar says. Then, things got worse. Even though Fetopolis wasn’t advertising, the likes and new followers kept on piling up. Normally, an advertiser would be pleased at such a result, but every time Brar checked a sample of the new fans he found people with dubious names; a picture of a flower as a profile shot; and fewer than 10 friends — classic signs of a fake profile. Naturally, Brar began disputing his bill with Facebook. He wanted his clicks audited by a third party, to see how many were genuine. Then he discovered that Facebook’s terms of service forbid third-party verification of its clicks. That’s something all advertisers should be aware of before they spend a penny on Facebook: Facebook has operated this way for a long time, and has a page for advertisers explaining in more depth why third-party click reporting may not match Facebook’s click counts. Essentially, Facebook suggests, if clicks are not measured in exactly the same way over the same time intervals then there will always be discrepancies. Facebook is different from the rest of the online ad industry, which follows a standard of allowing click audits by third parties like the IAB, the Media Ratings Council or Ernst & Young. This will all be exposed by the market sooner or later. I’m just shocked it is taking so long for people to put two and two together.
Full article here.
|
|
|
Post by clinton on Feb 28, 2014 2:24:54 GMT -5
a small sample from the hundreds of post on a facebook for business post Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by clinton on Feb 28, 2014 3:07:44 GMT -5
and Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by clinton on Mar 5, 2014 6:58:07 GMT -5
looks like FB has changed their algo after all the bad press they've been getting Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by clinton on Mar 17, 2014 13:27:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by huh on Mar 18, 2014 10:06:25 GMT -5
Been watching FB to hit the top of it's up channel. But seems like it's having trouble getting up there. I wouldn't short it here, but if it were to lose $67.25, it's run out of steam. Also, a small possibility that it could be forming a H&S pattern here under that top channel - LS the 02/24 high, Head the 03/11 high. If that's the case, then could expect a trip back to ~71.50 for a RS. If playing short for a possible H&S, I'd use a tight stop with that shoulder test line as this could still try for that upper channel resistance area. But superseding all is that 67.25 FIB support. It would likely fall hard if it were to lose that into a close. JMHO
|
|
|
Post by huh on Mar 20, 2014 16:42:00 GMT -5
Facebook lost that FIB support today. Sitting only a little above the neckline now. The neckline sits around 66.67 early tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by jacksrbtr on Mar 20, 2014 17:24:07 GMT -5
Facebook lost that FIB support today. Sitting only a little above the neckline now. The neckline sits around 66.67 early tomorrow. ITMS sees it going lower with a buy at 50-something if I recall....
|
|
|
Post by huh on Mar 20, 2014 18:49:57 GMT -5
Facebook lost that FIB support today. Sitting only a little above the neckline now. The neckline sits around 66.67 early tomorrow. ITMS sees it going lower with a buy at 50-something if I recall.... I'd only caution to be careful of an opening gap below the neckline, and then a recover. That normally means a squeeze of the pattern.
|
|
|
Post by huh on Mar 21, 2014 11:09:25 GMT -5
Facebook lost that FIB support today. Sitting only a little above the neckline now. The neckline sits around 66.67 early tomorrow. FB still holding above the neckline. The RS did not go even close to high enough to hit the shoulder test line, and may still be undeveloped. So there is still the possibility that does up to test that as long as the neckline holds. That line currently sits around 71.75.
|
|
|
Post by huh on Mar 25, 2014 9:14:15 GMT -5
FB would backtest the H&S neckline broken yesterday ~66.70.
|
|
|
Post by huh on Mar 25, 2014 10:13:44 GMT -5
FB would backtest the H&S neckline broken yesterday ~66.70. Didn't even get that high, and would take one hell of a squeeze to do it now (but wouldn't rule it out - if it does, would likely form a smaller H&S, peaking at the backtest).
|
|
|
Post by huh on Mar 26, 2014 11:18:26 GMT -5
FB never did backtest that neckline, and nearing the H&S target (which is ~61.25).
|
|
|
Post by clinton on Mar 26, 2014 12:30:53 GMT -5
Man I want obnoxious FB bulls to get hammered soon 61 and dropping Mwa ha ha ha
|
|
|
Post by huh on Mar 26, 2014 12:34:01 GMT -5
Man I want obnoxious FB bulls to get hammered soon 61 and dropping Mwa ha ha ha Nearing the H&S downside target. Not necessarily support, only a target. But never did backtest the neckline, which is rare.
|
|
|
Post by clinton on Mar 26, 2014 14:06:30 GMT -5
61 and dropping Mwa ha ha ha Nearing the H&S downside target. Not necessarily support, only a target. But never did backtest the neckline, which is rare. AND EXTRA BEARISH
|
|
|
Post by huh on Mar 26, 2014 17:56:48 GMT -5
Nearing the H&S downside target. Not necessarily support, only a target. But never did backtest the neckline, which is rare. AND EXTRA BEARISH Yep, good call Clinton. I don't see support now until the 100dma, and then the bottom of the up channel (blue line in previous chart) ~56.70-57.00. Yet, even as bad as FB looks, TWTR looks far worse. It lost all supports. That's an oogly chart (or ooglier).
|
|
|
Post by clinton on Mar 26, 2014 18:09:10 GMT -5
2014-03-26 07:32 by Karl Denninger in Company Specific , 82 references FaceBook Gives Away More Money I know what your kid should be when he or she grows up.
Have a cute but implausible idea, put it on kickstarter, then find some way to get Zukerburgler to see it and 'like' it. You'll get a $2 billion cash-out deal with essentially zero diligence performed as it will all be done in a day or three.
I'm actually serious, although I do understand the odds of you being the one who gets the deal. They're "long." Well, ok, not long. About as good as being hit by an asteroid while getting your mail.
But -- let's be real here about what "Oculus" is, and what Zucker****er has bet that money on.
Virtual Reality is nothing that's actually new. It's really just a way to put the monitor that you have now on your desk (or the array of them that I have on my desk) right next to your eyeballs and then figure out how to put enough corrective lens in front of them so that your eyes don't go ape**** trying to focus up that close over any material amount of time.
That an immersion-style "virtual reality" set of eyewear got this sort of payday should tell us a lot about what Facebook's founder sees as the future, and if that doesn't make you sit back and shut down your Facebook account then there's little hope for you.
I'm not surprised, by the way, that this sort of thing is garnering "attention" -- after all, the walking zombies that we see today in shopping malls, on the sidewalk and elsewhere trying to get themselves run over by various things (like stationary light poles -- that's one of the more-amusing parts of "people watching" these days) certainly point to where certain aspects of the tech marketplace think we're all headed as a society.
I'm not buying it, and I'll go further: No-diligence deals are nearly always little more than burning Benji as a form of conspicuous dissipation of shareholder value.
|
|
|
Post by clinton on Mar 27, 2014 9:00:20 GMT -5
53.53 Attachments:
|
|