UK to big brands: Get off our Facebook, mate! Nearly two-thirds of Britons would prefer big-name brands to stay off social networks, according to a new survey. The crusty old Brits are the most bothered by advertising on Facebook, Twitter and the like, with 61 per cent of social network users saying they'd prefer not to engage with brands on social media, compared to 60 …
I know this is probably going to single me out for the next series of Grumpy Old Men, but I have to say I am finding it increasingly annoying that so many products or competitions are linked to Facebook (for which I do not have an account) instead of the companies’ own website. Why does this brand of soft drink want me to go to Facebook to take part in their competition or find out more about them rather than their own, presumably expensively maintained (maybe that’s it?) website with all their own branding?
The problem, I believe, is that we've had a fair few years now, since the birth of the interwebs, where we've been bombarded first of all with spam mail, then pop-ups, then pop-unders, then roll-overs, then more spam mail and so on. Then, we got bombarded with people telling us all these were scams, ID theft attempts, 419's, viruses, trojans and so on.
Now, I think we have a tendancy to assume ALL web-based advertising is probably some sort of scam, and its this that retailers are trying to overcome.
Certainly, speaking for myself, my natural reaction to internet advertising is a cautious one, and certainly not an impulsive-let's-buy-it one.
The reason it's more of an issue in the UK? Well, we're far more cynical than most of our partner nations, aren't we?
Bit of a mountain to climb there, big biz. Good luck to you!
I agree with Mr Iota; I do not have a facebook account and even if I did I wouldn't "interact" with brands that used it as it seems to me a lazy and cheapskate way of advert^H^H^H^H^H^H, sorry, having a meaningful relationship with customers, rather than developing their own piece of net real estate.
Brands that do facebook don't get my business unless they have the same functionality on their own sites.
Or more likely, the page hosts were very much "more than just slightly" likely to DELETE complaints than praise.
And on the facebook site I just looked at (no names, no pack drill) I notice that most of the people who have left positive comments are other members of the staff -- though you wouldn't know that as an ordinary user, unless you happened to know their names because they don't declare themselves as staff.
... as it's forcing you to sign up with Facebook, this is the whole reason the 'No Purchase Nessecary' label was brought into play so as to not alienate anyone and make it fair and open to all.
(Hence why I'm constantly battling my manager who thinks everything needs to go on Facebook first and I'm always saying website first, that is and always will be our primary source of information).
Worse than that, as a local authority we have even more reason to make sure our info is on the website first. With nigh on 160,000 residents not all of them will have internet access and those that do will not all want to sign up to Facebook or even look at it. But what do I know, I'm just the monkey that pushes buttons, it's not like I've been working in this field for the last 15yrs.
People have had similar views about advertising on newspapers and magazines for quite some time.
Newspapers even had adverts to explain why advertising is necessary for the continued operation of the business.
Also important to note that all social media sites have some form of advertising. They just can't operate without that revenue. It is also important to note that if everyone used Adblockers, then these sites will not make money and will fold. So if you'd like your preferred site to survive, it can only do with you viewing an ad or two.
In the end, it's impossible to get away from advertising and regardless of the complaints about intrusive adverts, we will just accept them as normal as we did with newspapers and magazines.
One has to wonder, had it not been for all the flashy, noisy, pop-over, pop-under 'interactive' advertising banners in the first place, if things like Adblock would have come into existence?
Google seemed to have the right idea about ads, but by the time they came on the scene it was already too late.
Online advertising is akin to reading a newspaper that for every page has either one of those musical birthday card chips, or a phyisical pop-up model that covers the column you're trying to read, as you open the page. How long would it take for a physical newspaper to go out of business if it employed those techniques to it's advertising model?
Advertisers should have kept a leash on their enthusiasm to embrace new tech. They should have adapted the newspaper model to advertising and kept it discreet - now its blown back in their faces and there's no way I'm going to disable any of my ad/script blockers.
I've got one ad that comes up about Smithwicks, It just reminds to stock the fridge because I like Smickwicks, I don't click on the ad in case it goes away. I once was leaving a message for someone that had the word "old" in it, and I then seen ads for stair lifts and those granny buggies (Which are cool) being advertiesed. for ads I don't want I remove them choosing the "sexually explicit" option. <unrelated> I need to update my hosts file too </unrelated>
Beer because that's what I like
This arose due to a requirement under UK gambling & gaming laws. If you create a game wherein a prize may be offered (known as an AWP or Amusement With Prizes model), then you have to be compliant with the gambling statutes.
If you say "No purchase neccessary" then you aren't asking for a payment in return for the chance of a prize and therefore you are not offering an AWP and no longer need to be compliant.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
