One Simple Chart Proves That Facebook Thinks You're A Moron

Tyler Durden's picture

Last week we jokingly wrote about a Facebook press release that was apparently an honest effort by the social media giant intended to summarize Russian efforts to undermine the 2016 election using their social media platform. That said, at least to us, it seemed as though Facebook unwittingly proved what a farce the entire 'Russian collusion' narrative had become as, after digging through advertising data for the better part of full year, Facebook reported that they found a 'staggering' $50,000 worth of ad buys that 'MAY' have been purchased by Russian-linked accounts to run 'potentially politically related' ads.

Not surprisingly, after being attacked by the mainstream media and even Hillary for "assisting" the Russians, Zuckerberg is once again in the press today fanning the flames of the 'Russian collusion' narrative by saying that Facebook will release to Congress the details of the 3,000 ads that 'MAY' have been purchased by Russian-linked accounts.

And while it seems obvious, please allow us to once again demonstrate why this entire process is so utterly bizarre... 

The chart below demonstrates how the $50,000 worth of ad buys that 'MAY' have been purchased by Russian-linked accounts to run 'potentially politically related' ads compares to the $26.8 billion in ad revenue that Facebook generated in the U.S. over the same time period between 3Q 2015 and 2Q 2017....If $50,000 can swing an entire presidential election can you imagine what $26.8 billion can do?


Of course, not all of that $26.8 billion was spent on political advertising so we took a shot at breaking it down further.  While Facebook doesn't disclose political spending as a percent of their overall advertising revenue, we did a little digging and found that political advertising represented ~5% of the overall ad market in the U.S. in 2016.  We further assumed that political share of the overall ad market is roughly half of that amount in non-election years, or 2.5%. 

Using that data, we figure that Facebook may get ~3.5% of their annual revenue from political advertising in an average year, or nearly $1 billion per year...give or take a few million.  Unfortunately, as the chart below once again demonstrates, this still does little to support Zuckerberg's thesis that the $50,000 he keeps talking about is in any way relevant to the 2016 election.


Of course, the pursuit of this ridiculous narrative proves that Zuckerberg has no interest in spreading the truth about how his company impacted (and by "impacted," we mean "had no impact at all") the 2016 election, but rather is only interested in shoving his political agenda down the throats of an American public that he presumes is too stupid to question his propaganda. 

That said, if Zuckerberg is really just on a mission for truth, as he says he is, perhaps he can stop patronizing the American public and disclose the full facts surrounding political advertising on Facebook.  We suspect a simple financial disclosure detailing how much political advertising was sold on Facebook from 3Q 2015 - 2Q 2017, broken down by political affiliation, would go a long way toward proving just how meaningless $50,000 is in the grand scheme of things. 

That said, somehow we suspect 'truth' is not really Zuckerberg's end goal, now is it?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
localsavage's picture

The real story is that companies waste 26 billion on ads that don't work.

HRClinton's picture

LOL. Yes.

I guess that makes them worse than a Moron. It makes them an Imbecile. Maybe even an Idiot.

wee-weed up's picture




I'm not at all surprised that SuckerBorg continues...

To fleece the dumb sheeple with his FaceFuck.

Suckers are born every minute...

TeamDepends's picture

If a fool "Likes" a fool who leaves the oven on all night eventually torching a city block, which fool is to be "Liked"?

Four chan's picture

believe a jew and see what you get. thats all im saying about this.

SafelyGraze's picture

that was $26.8 billion of liquidity the fed forgot to mop up


stinkypinky's picture

The premise of the article is incorrect. Zuck did indeed have an effect on the election, as did the $26 billion. They made the election close vs. the complete blowout it would have otherwise been had they not tried their best.

Deathrips's picture

Not shilling.

Ad accountability is what this crypto company is addressing. It is an interesting approach.

Would rip the guts out of google..fb... they lie so they can print money on us.


Hedge accordingly.





svayambhu108's picture

If it's true than those money are money well spent...

Richard Chesler's picture

Incovenient facts will not deter LIBTURDS from getting all excited an giggly.

Got The Wrong No's picture

$50,000 divided by 3,000 = $16.66. Can you even buy an add on Facebook for less than 17 bucks?

Those Russians are really frugal. The CIA spends Billions to influence an election.

Pliskin's picture

'There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.'


greenskeeper carl's picture

In fairness to zuckerberg, it's pretty easy to understand why he would think Americans are all stupid. Most of them are.

CuttingEdge's picture

This is purely a marketing ploy by Zuckfuck for Faecesbook...

As in: See the power of our advertising model? You too can get a foreign superpower leader elected for only $50k.

Lore's picture

Pretty much everyone here saw through the stupid "Russians" marketing ploy as soon as it began. The only people still pushing it are the most desperate old whores.

More importantly, this discussion puts a much-needed magnifying glass on the utter pointlessness of online advertising in general.

I don't remember if it was addressed here, but there's a scandal brewing to the effect that hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ad-click commitments are sitting unpaid for the simple reason that they don't generate S A L E S.

NoPension's picture

Well, I've got to come clean.

I was planning and intending to vote for " HER! ".

But then I must have unwittingly glimpsed a Russian ad or two. And it was all she wrote. Into the poll like a zombie I strode...and voted Trump.

Those wily fuckers.

CuttingEdge's picture

Imagine the difference it would have made if the DNC had spent $50k advertising with FB...

Actually, anyone got the number on what they did donate to Zuckerberg's coffers for the election?

Just for a laugh, and to prove how utterly fucking useless his medium is for advertisers who even have Google algos 100% in their favour to nudge the sheeple of the matrix in the right direction.

CuttingEdge's picture

With WPP performance and some of Sorrell's comments in recent times as a barometer, that penny is beginning to drop.

Just a shame FB was able to become the monster it is today, enriching and empowering Zuckerberg beyond his wildest dreams as a result of mass market stupidity (and a healthy dose of mass population self-obsession in the first instance). A seriously morally fucked individual to be granted that much control.

Ditto Google/Youtube and the CIA man Schmidt.


Refuse-Resist's picture

Here's an old saying (from 2005) in my house:  FUCK FACEBOOK



Promethus's picture

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice shame on me.

Cmdr Scott  - Star Trek. 

political_proxy's picture

good thing ZH hasn't gone bat shit crazy with ads

Zorba's idea's picture

thats what happens when the "Founders" fade away..

Chuck Walla's picture

Fake Book doesn't "think" it. They know it.

Zorba's idea's picture

...go with idiot, Major Idiot

RockySpears's picture

"According to British legal stature, an idiot is an individual with an IQ of less than 20, an imbecile has an IQ of between 20 and 49, and a moron an IQ between 50 and 69. Cretins are specifically persons with a deformity or mental retardation caused by a thyroid deficiency; cretinism is now more commonly called hyperthyroidism. Idoit isderived from the Greek for "private person" (as in idiosyncracy); moron is from the Greek for "foolish"; imbecile is a construction from a Latin phrase meaning "without a stick"; cretin comes, via the French, from the word "Christian" and implies a holy person - God's fool" as it were."



Akzed's picture

cretin comes, via the French, from the word "Christian" and implies a holy person - God's fool" as it were."

The etymology is uncertain, most likely it is from this New Testament passage:

"Even one of their own prophets has said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth.”  -St. Paul, Titus 1:12-15

This is of course a micro-agression toward people from Crete, not to mention anti-semitic, and contains gluten.

TeraByte's picture

I may be incompetent to run a big business, but investing 1.2 B to promotion and losing the battle to 12000 fold less money for alleged opposite views would be an embarrassment. I can not afford such a capital misallocation.

greenskeeper carl's picture

Ya, I've had a similar thought. If I spent 1.2 billion losing when I was supposed to be a shoe in, the LAST thing I would be doing was admitting someone beat me with a measly 50k. That shit would be embarrassing. It makes her look like an even bigger tard. You would also think it would be hard for them to raise a bunch of money when the ROI is pretty much nonexistent.

jcaz's picture

Very true, Carl.   If you look at her entire career in that light, tho, it's pretty clear that the chick is just pretty fucking stupid.   Bill carried her ass in a lot of ways,  hid her shit from direct view.  

Her complete lack of hubris now is par for the course for Hill.  I'd have to believe that- despite her bluster- her backers are finally catching on that investing more money in her is just lighting it on fire.

greenskeeper carl's picture

Oh ya, she has done nothing but ride her husbands coat tails her entire life. Bill Clinton is a complete scumbag, but he is also a skilled, smooth talking politician, and is pretty smart. I can admit that, even though I despise them man. She is none of those things. Aside from becoming a lawyer, a job from which she was quickly fired for ethics violations, she has never gotten anywhere on her own. She won her senate seat in NY because JFK Jr. Died in that plane crash. There was much anticipation that he would run for that seat, and had he been around to, she never would have had a chance. Next she tried, and failed to get the dem nomination. She was given Sec state as a consolation prize after losing, despite using a lot of dirty tactics. The country got nothing good to show for her tenure there, just added a few more countries to the list of failed states. Then she ran again, got the nomination through super delegates, and by cheating and using underhanded tactics, and then lost to a political neophyte that kept putting his foot in his mouth and was massively outspent. And they STILL want to blame her lose on 50k in Facebook ads that MAY be linked to some Russian people.

Pernicious Gold Phallusy's picture

The Democratic-voting target audience for this Fakebook Russian ad spending story doesn't understand the difference between $50,000 and $1,200,000,000.

buzzkillb's picture

Facebook admits they colluded by taking Russian money to rig the election for Trump? All while Obama knew about this. Who are the crooks?

Captain Chlamydia's picture

"The real story is that companies waste 26 billion on ads that don't work."

Hah! So. .. that is what you think, denying thousands of research papers, on the effect of marketing propaganda, aimed at the usual idiot. 


quadraspleen's picture

I think the recent report from P&G stating that sales went up slightly after they pulled their $100m online advertising budget may have to disagree with you. Straight advertising and propaganda are slightly different things. Not all of crackbook‘s $26bn of shit ads went on political propaganda. Lots of it went on trying to sell you shit you don’t want and will never need

Captain Chlamydia's picture

That is exactly my point. If marketing propaganda did not work,  we would not buy Tesla ,  would not drink coca cola ,  would not have a credit card . 

Lore's picture

Correct. And this is why so many critical thinkers are figuring out for themselves that Teslas are a bad investment, soft drinks are unhealthy, and debt is a thing to be eliminated.

TeraByte's picture

Yes, you are exposed to unwarranted promotion scams (incl. FB), who promise to lift your business up to Google´s first page, but for some mystical unspecified reasons, none of these santa´s little helpers themselves are not found their ways to there.

Max Cynical's picture

"The real story is that companies waste 26 billion on ads that don't work."

On one platform! How many other 100% advertsiing based "tech" companies are out there? 

Everybodys All American's picture

We may have just had our last "free" election. This points to Zuckerberg and the feds coming in to "save" us from the outsiders like the russians and thereby "regulate" all political ads. We are so in need of wiping these assholes out.

Vlad the Inhaler's picture

Nope.  The REAL story is that two billion SHEEP provide free content to Facebook to attract eyeballs to their site because it strokes their ego, and then willingly allow their every move to be under surveillance, face recognition etc so that Facebook can get filthy rich by selling targeted ads to them.

Iconoclast421's picture

The fact that people use a site that enables them to make 27 frickin billion inrevenue from selling them out is what proves people are dumb as dirt. Every penny that they get is money that you dont get. Therefore it is the same as if it came out your own pocket. Therefore the average crapbook user pays something like $500 a year to get raped.

Juggernaut x2's picture

Millenials don't use FB- they just Spapchat dick and pussy pics to one another. There's websites that have nothing but nude pictures of these high school whores who sent pics out over their phones and then guys upload them. I do not envy fathers trying to raise girls these days.

umdesch4's picture

I dunno. I use FB, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I have a couple layers of adblock on at all times. Everything about my profile is completely fake, but in ways that people who know me IRL would say "oh yeah, that's the kind of thing he'd do", so they know it's me when they get my friend requests (all my FB friends are people I've met in person). I post pictures with fudged geolocs in the exif metadata, placing me all over the globe. I write posts in three different languages on occasion, to lend more credence to my alter-ego persona.

...and when we plan scotch tasting parties as an event on FB, we have a maintained list of who's bringing what, so we get a really good variety of scotch to try. I keep in touch with a group of friends from all over the place that I don't get to see for years at a time. So I find some value in it.

Joyo Bliss's picture

Will the real Walter McMitty please stand up.

rp2016's picture

Where did you get this line : "That said, somehow we suspect 'truth' is not really Zuckerberg's end goal, now is it?"

who want truth, anyways? we all want everything except the truth.

Juggernaut x2's picture

Did you expect the truth from Zuckerberg the Jew- his dad is Satan, the Father of Lies

Grouchy-Bear's picture

"but rather is only interested in shoving his political agenda down the throats of an American public that he presumes is too stupid to question his propaganda."

Now that is the truth... and they are too stupid and or scared to question...

No Facebook, get a real book and do some reading...

Yen Cross's picture

 I had a horrible dream a few nights ago.  The Sham-Wow guy was was speaking Russian while trying to sell me Zuckerfuck bobble-heads, and I understood him!

TeamDepends's picture

Did you act now and score the ginsu knives? In the dream, of course.