Facebook will count one person as two on its platform

https://www.indiehackers.com/post/facebook-will-count-one-person-as-two-on-its-platform-03784c81f6

by heymax054 • 5 years ago

51 38 5 years ago

While I do support this change from a users' perspective, I find it hard to believe Facebook's official reason to "honor users' choices". What's the real motivation behind this Facebook update?

bellyfullofbac• 5 years ago

"Your ad was shown to 2 people" but it was 1 person. Multiple that by however many haven't linked their accounts, and FB is charging you^W advertisers twice to show the ad to the same person.

TFA: >If only a small percentage of your target audience has linked their accounts, when you run Facebook and Instagram ad campaigns, you'll (falsely) see that you're reaching double the number of "people" (i.e. accounts). After all, Facebook will count that one person as two, if your ad shows both on Facebook and Instagram.

Aaargh20318• 5 years ago

I'll give you a hint: it starts with an M and rhymes with 'honey'.

ghostbrainalpha• 5 years ago

Mummy..? I don't see what Egyptology has to do with this conversation.

RNCTX• 5 years ago

It would be wise to stop believing what corporations say. They tend to lie.

Do you really believe that Facebook doesn't know if someone has multiple accounts if they failed to seek out a Facebook setting to link them together? This is the same Facebook that lifts data from people's phones even if they opt out of giving them that data.

orev• 5 years ago

It’s a way to goose the numbers to make it look like more people saw an ad than really did. This type of tactic is usually employed when a company is facing a real decline in users/views, so they start coming up with “creative” ways to make numbers look better than they really are.

TedShiller• 5 years ago

What's the real motivation behind this Facebook update?

Money

dado3212• 5 years ago

The cause is likely not money or goodwill: it’s legal privacy rulings. GDPR and the FCO ruling [1] have made it so cross-platform data (like the IG-FB data here to guess if two ad spend users are the same) isn’t allowed without explicit consent. My guess is that’s what’s driving this.

[1]. https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/7/18215143/facebook-whatsapp...

alfongj• 5 years ago

This is the right answer. Matching user data without consent is becoming fairly risky from a data regulation standpoint, as well as user perception.

mttddd• 5 years ago

yep, its because of the FCO ruling. The other thing I think everyone spouting money are missing is that FB would much rather be able to use the link between your FB and IG accounts to better serve you up ads based on that combined data.

ahahahahah• 5 years ago

It may have went like this:

1. Facebook believed that the best thing for users was to have one account and identity across all services 2. Users expressed that they thought this was terrible 3. Facebook reconsidered, now thinks it's best to support accounts that aren't linked

Spivak• 5 years ago

Can someone who works in the ad tech space give some context on how seemingly advertisers being less effective drove up prices?

Who are these advertisers that are happy to pay 25% more for less?

itake7• 5 years ago

Its not a great for advertisers to be paying 25% more for less, but what are advertisers choices? Switch to Google? Create an ad on TV? Who else can provide a single interface with (great?) analytics dashboards to reach a massive segment of our population with various levels of granularity?

itake7• 5 years ago

This is spreading misinformation:

we may see advertisers being charged double for their ads.

Can you please dive deeper into this? Advertisers can either pay for clicks (CPC) or impressions (CPM). Neither of these are tied to "humans" or "accounts". How does this change double charge for ads?

[0] https://www.facebook.com/business/help/716180208457684?id=17...

---

edit

An impression is counted as the number of times an instance of an ad is on screen for the first time.
If an ad is on screen for someone 2 different times in a day, that counts as 2 impressions.

https://www.facebook.com/business/help/675615482516035?helpr...

heymax0545• 5 years ago

It can be tied to humans/accounts. Facebook has a "cost per 1000 people reached" derived metric: https://www.facebook.com/business/help/1461718327429941?help...

Facebook changing their definition of what a person is (outside of the normal societal definition) was the real issue here.

EDIT: Removed the "double" and the whole price reference because it caused confusion.

itake7• 5 years ago

An impression is counted as the number of times an instance of an ad is on screen for the first time.
If an ad is on screen for someone 2 different times in a day, that counts as 2 impressions.

Facebook's website [0] says impressions aren't tied to accounts or persons and the explicitly provide an example how a single account (and person) could count 2 impressions. Can you please provide a source where Facebook says CPM is accounts or persons?

[0] https://www.facebook.com/business/help/675615482516035?helpr...

bpodgursky• 5 years ago

It would not surprise me at all if this was done from a legal defensibility standpoint... if Facebook said that the accounts remain separate, but then it was discovered that they were for all intents and purposes linked behind the scenes, that's an even bigger problem.

I wouldn't jump to an insidious conspiracy to boost impression #s a couple percent (given that it's not obvious to me this affects their billing at all).

jsnell3• 5 years ago

Yes, I'd bet a large amount of money that this was done due to privacy compliance reasons.

hardtke• 5 years ago

I'm curious how they would handle this with regards to lift tests. You can ask Facebook to not show your ads to faction of the addressable audience, and then calculate sales for the treated and control groups. If they don't make the randomization binding across platforms, it can several reduce the incrementality measurement (effectiveness of Facebook ads).

jsnell3• 5 years ago

Just key the experiment diversion on the email address rather than an internal user ID. That way the experiment and control groups will be consistent across the apps, with the downside that a user changing their email might migrate between groups. But changing your email has to be a very rare operation.

kerng• 5 years ago

The motivation behind such a move is likely iOS 14 updates.

So, to compensate they do this.

It's really difficult these days to find anything positive about Facebook and related products.

Panino• 5 years ago

This looks like shrinkflation, the practice where a product is reduced in size and sold for the same price. It's very common in packaged food products. There's one key difference:

Facebook/Instagram ad prices are already skyrocketing due to Apple's update.

So that adds a little wrinkle. I don't have a FB account and certainly don't advertise there, just saying.

thealistra• 5 years ago

So people are now angry that FB instead of using all the data collected to detect people using multiple accounts now is using only the data provided to them in their account linking?

Is this bad? For prices/ads obviously, but in general is it?

Facebook will count one person as two on its platform

Related Stories