Facebook COO: "A Few Advertisers Have Paused Spending With Us"

Two weeks ago we reported that in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, first Mozilla, then Germany's Commerzbank, and a handful of other smaller companies had suspended their Facebook ad campaigns, as advertisers decided to stay away from the radioactive company, at least until the tempest slamming the social media company faded.

Others were more tentative: ISBA, a British group of advertisers that spends hundreds of millions of pounds a year on Facebook, demanded answers. As The Times reported in March, some of ISBA's 3,000 brands, which include those of the consumer goods companies Unilever and P&G, said they would not tolerate association with Facebook if it emerges that users’ data has found its way into the hands of brokers and political campaigners without authorization. Sources close to the trade body said that if the company’s answers were not satisfactory, advertisers might spend their money elsewhere.

Two weeks later it appears that decisions whether or not to pull ads remain in limbo, even as - according to Facebook COO, Sheryl Sandberg - "a few" advertisers have paused their spending as they wait for the company to answer questions on user privacy.

“We’ve seen a few advertisers pause with us and they’re asking the same questions that other people are asking,” Sandberg said. “They want to make sure they can use data and use it safely.”

However, according to Bloomberg, Sandberg said she is having “reassuring conversations with advertisers, just as we are with people,” about how Facebook has built privacy into its system.

In a wide-ranging interview, Sandberg discussed the company’s shifting responsibilities as it thinks about what can go wrong with its network, following the Cambridge Analytica revelations. She said Facebook is drawing stricter boundaries around its work with certain advertisers and political campaigns, too. The company has worked directly with governments that went on to use the social network against their people, and advertisers that ran anti-Muslim content, for example.

Facebook will continue to work with political advertisers, and will still aim to be "neutral" when assessing content -- just more careful, Sandberg said.

But more importantly for Facebook, and perhaps the best indication that the storm for Zuckerberg & Co. has now passed, DataTrek'c Nick Colas found that the outrage over Facebook is now over. Specifically, Colas was looking at Google search data for “Delete Facebook” since the issues started, and found that the company has not seen any "meaningful impact" in its usage or business. Specifically:

  • While searches for the term did spike from March 18 to March 20, they are already most of the way back down to “normal” levels. It has been 18 days since “Delete Facebook” saw a large increase in search interest, and as of this past weekend search volumes were less than half what they were at their peaks in mid March.
  • Areas in the US with the most incremental interest in the term are lower-population states such as West Virginia, Montana, Maine, Alaska and North Dakota. Zoom in on high population states such as California, New York and Texas and you will find that “Delete Facebook” searches are entirely back to pre-crisis levels.
  • At its peak of Google search interest, “Delete Facebook” was as popular as “Kim Kardashian”. Now, Kim is back in the lead with a 2:1 advantage and climbing.
  • Also more popular than “Delete Facebook”: “Pizza” (65x more), “CNBC” (2x, although it was close for a few days), and “Game of Thrones” (3x, and the show hasn’t been on for a while).

Bottom line: unless there are a lot more revelations coming, #deletefacebook is #over.

It also means that for all the advertisers' virtue signalling, and for all Facebook promises that it will change the way it conducts business, just a few weeks after Zuckerberg testifies before Congress next week in yet another kangaroo court which achieves nothing, things will quietly go back to just the way they were, with Facebook collecting billions in "ad" revenue in exchange for selling all of your personal data to the highest bidders.

Comments

DillyDilly IH8OBAMA Thu, 04/05/2018 - 15:03 Permalink

Oh how far she's fallen

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-facebook-coo-sheryl-sand…

 

Sandberg has said that she has no plans to leave Facebook for a role in government. She served as chief of staff for treasury secretary Lawrence Summers before working at Google and then Facebook.

"I'm staying at Facebook," she said in response to a question about joining a potential Clinton administration in October.

Sandberg publicly endorsed Clinton in June 2016 alongside over 50 prominent business leaders. Leaked emails from the summer of 2015 between her and Clinton campaign chief John Podesta show a friendly relationship, including Sandberg inviting Podesta to Facebook headquarters and telling Podesta that she wants Clinton to "win badly."

In reply to by IH8OBAMA

thatthingcanfly ted41776 Thu, 04/05/2018 - 15:20 Permalink

"But more importantly for Facebook, and perhaps the best indication that the storm for Zuckerberg & Co. has now passed, DataTrek'c [sic] Nick Colas found that the outrage over Facebook is now over." ....

"While searches for the term did spike from March 18 to March 20, they are already most of the way back down to “normal” levels. It has been 18 days since “Delete Facebook” saw a large increase in search interest, and as of this past weekend search volumes were less than half what they were at their peaks in mid March."

I spot a defect in the logic. The argument that, because searches for the term "Delete Facebook" have dropped back to "normal" levels, people are interested in Facebook again, assumes only one possible explanation for the reduction in Google searches for that term. Seems to me another plausible explanation for the reduction in searches for "Delete Facebook" is that many people ACTUALLY DID delete Facebook, and, therefore, are no longer searching Google to figure out how.

In reply to by ted41776

Muroluvmi Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:56 Permalink

The company has worked directly with governments that went on to use the social network against their people

Huh? That sentence makes it sound like Facebook works with government to use Facebook against the governments' citizens. Freudian slip?

StheNine Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:56 Permalink

nice sunny day and you show that cunt?!

If sandburg/zuckerberg lose just half their money it should be a national holiday/celebration.

 

LadyAtZero Thu, 04/05/2018 - 15:03 Permalink

Sheryl is now speaking because Mark Zuckerberg (currently pausing) is probably stepping down. 

His large stock sale in the weeks before all this became public is not going to help him any.

 

PS: 

Q !xowAT4Z3VQ  04/04/18 (Wed) 13:39:57 72997f No.894699

>>894658

MZ to step down as Chairman.

MZ out of US.

@Jack                   < probably Jack Dorsey of Twitter

Good luck.

Q

BandGap Thu, 04/05/2018 - 15:12 Permalink

This is like "misremembered" and other bullshit terms they use these days.

For fucks sake, you're losing customers and you're about to get not one, but two rectal exams from Congress.

I grow weary of the lack of openness these days. It's not even openness, it obviousness. Stop treating the masses like stupid fuck PC peons.

abgary1 Thu, 04/05/2018 - 16:00 Permalink

We know that Cambridge used the data to create psychological profiles with the purpose of targeting certain groups which is known as social engineering.

Is FB doing the same?