This is probably old hat to some of the social media experts here, but I found it enlightening, especially in light of recent comments about our presence there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g
It certainly mirrors my experience with the Facebook group -- lots of members, but very low engagement.
Matthew Miller píše v Čt 10. 04. 2014 v 10:11 -0400:
This is probably old hat to some of the social media experts here, but I found it enlightening, especially in light of recent comments about our presence there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g
It certainly mirrors my experience with the Facebook group -- lots of members, but very low engagement.
The video nails the situation very well. Our communication channel on Facebook is completely dead. The heartbleed issue, which is a very important announcement, only reached 2,000 people out of 40,000 user base. Yes, we can fight it by making the engagement higher manually (by sharing the news), it's not going to help much and the trend is negative.
It's not only a problem of pages. I myself as a normal user don't find Facebook beneficial any more. I started using Facebook because I wanted to stay in touch with friends that I met in summer camps, exchange programs etc. But what I get in the news feed nowadays are messages from the inner cycle of my friends (20-30 of them) and I'm completely cut off from 300 others and most pages I follow. Instead of them, I get "suggested" posts.
I'm considering to abandon Facebook for Twitter and G+ because I find much more interesting posts there and I get what I want to get there.
I think we will have to follow a similar path in the end and focus on communication channels where we can actually get some reasonable level of engagement. Not mentioning that G+ and Twitter are generally more popular among our target audience from my experience.
Jiri
2014-04-10 11:54 GMT-03:00 Jiri Eischmann eischmann@redhat.com:
The video nails the situation very well. Our communication channel on Facebook is completely dead. The heartbleed issue, which is a very important announcement, only reached 2,000 people out of 40,000 user base. Yes, we can fight it by making the engagement higher manually (by sharing the news), it's not going to help much and the trend is negative.
It's not only a problem of pages. I myself as a normal user don't find Facebook beneficial any more. I started using Facebook because I wanted to stay in touch with friends that I met in summer camps, exchange programs etc. But what I get in the news feed nowadays are messages from the inner cycle of my friends (20-30 of them) and I'm completely cut off from 300 others and most pages I follow. Instead of them, I get "suggested" posts.
I'm considering to abandon Facebook for Twitter and G+ because I find much more interesting posts there and I get what I want to get there.
I think we will have to follow a similar path in the end and focus on communication channels where we can actually get some reasonable level of engagement. Not mentioning that G+ and Twitter are generally more popular among our target audience from my experience.
I agree 100% with you, Jiri, and I feel just like you regarding my experience on Facebook.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 04/10/2014 09:54 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
Matthew Miller píše v Čt 10. 04. 2014 v 10:11 -0400:
This is probably old hat to some of the social media experts here, but I found it enlightening, especially in light of recent comments about our presence there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g
It certainly mirrors my experience with the Facebook group -- lots of members, but very low engagement.
Just FYI we have three points of presence on FB (at least):
The Facebook *Group*: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Fedora.linux/ The Facebook Fedora Community Folks *group*: https://www.facebook.com/groups/127560783969535/ And the Fedora Linux *Page*: https://www.facebook.com/TheFedoraProject
This is, IMHO, confusing - so let's be sure we're talking about the same things.
The Fedora Page is doing pretty well. We have 40K+ people who've 'liked' the page.
We're consistently getting around 2K to 3.5K "people saw this post" on Facebook. And, as I mentioned in an earlier discussion, we're not doing very well at actually re-sharing things effectively from the Fedora Page to actually make it *more* effective.
The video nails the situation very well. Our communication channel on Facebook is completely dead.
No, it's actually not - I just think your expectations are out of whack, here.
Advertisers are usually happy with a click-through or engagement rate that's much lower than about 7% of the audience. IIRC from my publishing days, a 2% CTR is extremely good - so getting a post in front of 7% of the audience at any given time is actually good.
Let's also not assume that we can't reach the 40K people who follow the page via other means. You can't rely on any one channel to reach all the users - which is why we need the magazine, Twitter, G+, FB, *and* mailing lists.
The heartbleed
issue, which is a very important announcement, only reached 2,000 people out of 40,000 user base.
The Heartbeat post reached about 2,100 people out of 40K, which is 5% of the audience. That's not bad. I manage other pages with >170K "likes" and they get 5K to 7K 'saw this post'.
Yes, we can fight it by making the engagement higher manually (by sharing the news), it's not going to help much and the trend is negative.
Citation needed. You've done this? You have stats to show that it doesn't work?
I think we will have to follow a similar path in the end and focus on communication channels where we can actually get some reasonable level of engagement. Not mentioning that G+ and Twitter are generally more popular among our target audience from my experience.
What do you consider "a reasonable level of engagement," where are you getting that number from, and what's the evidence that Twitter or G+ will result in more engagement?
We have slightly fewer followers on Twitter, but we don't have any way to know how many people see our tweets. The Heartbleed update I tweeted on 8 April has 61 retweets. That's good on shares, but the nature of Twitter is much more ephemeral - the half-life of a tweet is much shorter than a FB post.
Note - I'm not against focusing on G+ and Twitter, but our Facebook presence is not "dead" in the slightest.
Best,
jzb - -- Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst jzb@redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:58:04AM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
[snip]
The Fedora Page is doing pretty well. We have 40K+ people who've 'liked' the page.
But... see the video on the value of that as a metric.
We're consistently getting around 2K to 3.5K "people saw this post" on Facebook. And, as I mentioned in an earlier discussion, we're not doing very well at actually re-sharing things effectively from the Fedora Page to actually make it *more* effective.
I guess 2000-3500 people is not to be sneezed at. But I also don't think "saw this post" should be mixed up with click-through, let alone engagement. Click through is the percentage of people who _saw_ it who click.
Advertisers are usually happy with a click-through or engagement rate that's much lower than about 7% of the audience. IIRC from my publishing days, a 2% CTR is extremely good - so getting a post in front of 7% of the audience at any given time is actually good.
The Heartbleed post was up there yesterday, and it got 19 likes (including me) and 5 reshares (from people I recognize from this group, mostly). Since we enabled the stats module on the magazine right around the same time of the post, we've gotten *59* hits from Facebook (not just that post; all hits we've tracked with this stats program). So, with 2100 views and depending on what we count as a click, that's somewhere around 3% -- but only a fraction a percent of the total number of likes.
We have slightly fewer followers on Twitter, but we don't have any way to know how many people see our tweets. The Heartbleed update I tweeted on 8 April has 61 retweets. That's good on shares, but the nature of Twitter is much more ephemeral - the half-life of a tweet is much shorter than a FB post.
So far, we're getting an order of magnitude more hits on the magazine from Twitter. (It is the #1 non-search referrer.) But we don't really have much history to go on yet.
Joe Brockmeier píše v Čt 10. 04. 2014 v 11:58 -0500:
On 04/10/2014 09:54 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
Matthew Miller píše v Čt 10. 04. 2014 v 10:11 -0400:
This is probably old hat to some of the social media experts here, but I found it enlightening, especially in light of recent comments about our presence there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g
It certainly mirrors my experience with the Facebook group -- lots of members, but very low engagement.
Just FYI we have three points of presence on FB (at least):
The Facebook *Group*: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Fedora.linux/ The Facebook Fedora Community Folks *group*: https://www.facebook.com/groups/127560783969535/ And the Fedora Linux *Page*: https://www.facebook.com/TheFedoraProject
This is, IMHO, confusing - so let's be sure we're talking about the same things.
The Fedora Page is doing pretty well. We have 40K+ people who've 'liked' the page.
The Fedora Page is doing pretty well in terms of number of users because we got all those likes before the change we're talking about. As I wrote in one of my previous post, we got 15,000 likes in one year. After the change we've gotten ~350 in the last 6 months. That's not something I would call "doing well".
We're consistently getting around 2K to 3.5K "people saw this post" on Facebook. And, as I mentioned in an earlier discussion, we're not doing very well at actually re-sharing things effectively from the Fedora Page to actually make it *more* effective
The video nails the situation very well. Our communication channel on Facebook is completely dead.
No, it's actually not - I just think your expectations are out of whack, here.
Advertisers are usually happy with a click-through or engagement rate that's much lower than about 7% of the audience. IIRC from my publishing days, a 2% CTR is extremely good - so getting a post in front of 7% of the audience at any given time is actually good.
As Matthew already wrote you confuse click-throughs with views. 7% of views/number of users is IMHO pretty bad. Especially in the case of a social network page which users like/+1/... because they want to follow its news.
Let's also not assume that we can't reach the 40K people who follow the page via other means. You can't rely on any one channel to reach all the users - which is why we need the magazine, Twitter, G+, FB, *and* mailing lists.
The heartbleed
issue, which is a very important announcement, only reached 2,000 people out of 40,000 user base.
The Heartbeat post reached about 2,100 people out of 40K, which is 5% of the audience. That's not bad. I manage other pages with >170K "likes" and they get 5K to 7K 'saw this post'.
I'm not saying we're doing bad compared to other FB pages, I'm saying that Facebook has become a very ineffective communication channel compared to other social networks. Saying that other pages are doing even worse kinda makes my point.
Yes, we can fight it by making the engagement higher manually (by sharing the news), it's not going to help much and the trend is negative.
Citation needed. You've done this? You have stats to show that it doesn't work?
I maintain 5 other FB pages from a page of a beer event to a page of a small town news server with different share/like per number of users ratios and it's similar everywhere - a huge drop of engagement. And Facebook announced they would let even fewer unpaid posts to users in the future. Moreover I don't find very wise to share whatever the Fedora page publishes to make the engagement higher. 250 out of my 314 FB friends don't care about operating systems or Fedora and if I share posts they don't care about at all I will disappear from their news feed as well. That's the core of the doom of Facebook. You no longer decide what you want to see, they do, based on lousy algorithms. In the past, you had to "hide" your friend in the news feed if you didn't want to get messages from them, now you just need not to actively share/like/comment their posts and Facebook hides them for you. But as the video says you often just passively read the post and still appreciate it.
I think we will have to follow a similar path in the end and focus on communication channels where we can actually get some reasonable level of engagement. Not mentioning that G+ and Twitter are generally more popular among our target audience from my experience.
What do you consider "a reasonable level of engagement," where are you getting that number from, and what's the evidence that Twitter or G+ will result in more engagement?
We have slightly fewer followers on Twitter, but we don't have any way to know how many people see our tweets. The Heartbleed update I tweeted on 8 April has 61 retweets. That's good on shares, but the nature of Twitter is much more ephemeral - the half-life of a tweet is much shorter than a FB post.
Note - I'm not against focusing on G+ and Twitter, but our Facebook presence is not "dead" in the slightest.
Best,
jzb
----- Original Message -----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 04/10/2014 09:54 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
Matthew Miller píše v Čt 10. 04. 2014 v 10:11 -0400:
This is probably old hat to some of the social media experts here, but I found it enlightening, especially in light of recent comments about our presence there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g
It certainly mirrors my experience with the Facebook group -- lots of members, but very low engagement.
Just FYI we have three points of presence on FB (at least):
The Facebook *Group*: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Fedora.linux/ The Facebook Fedora Community Folks *group*: https://www.facebook.com/groups/127560783969535/ And the Fedora Linux *Page*: https://www.facebook.com/TheFedoraProject
This is, IMHO, confusing - so let's be sure we're talking about the same things.
Yes, it is confusing. On the other hand, it can be used for good. Especially that Community folks vs rest. When I share important milestones on FB, I do it only in the community folks group. There's not need to confuse users, I really want to reach different target audience.
On the other hand, with more generic posts, I always struggle where to post... And for people looking for Fedora presence on FB it can be really confusing which one they should pick up. But as you know, I usually like more options with a good explanation. Maybe changing "about" messages for all these groups/pages could help.
R.
Matthew Miller píše v Čt 10. 04. 2014 v 10:11 -0400:
This is probably old hat to some of the social media experts here, but I found it enlightening, especially in light of recent comments about our presence there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g
It certainly mirrors my experience with the Facebook group -- lots of members, but very low engagement.
-- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- mattdm@fedoraproject.org "Tepid change for the somewhat better!
Just a little follow-up: Google+ now also shows views of each post, so I made a little comparison.
* the number of views per post is around 4.5-5k on Google+, on Facebook it's around 2k,
* variance is much lower on G+ where all posts have pretty much the same reach while on FB it varies from 1.5k to 8k and it correlates with engagement,
* number of users: 20,073 on G+ and 40,600 on FB,
* post reach/use base is 24% on G+, 5% on FB, G+ seems to be much efficient in this,
* posts that come with a link have bigger engagement, videos are especially popular ,
* Men vs Women: 93% vs 5% on G+, 92% vs 7% on FB, yeah, most of our audience are men, I guess it's not surprising to us.
* Distribution by Age: 76% of all our fans on FB are between 18 and 34 while on G+ it's only 54% and the fan base is generally older.
* Countries: G+: 1. USA, 2. India, 3. Germany, 4. Brazil, 5. United Kingdom, FB: 1. USA, 2. India, 3. Brazil, 4. Mexico, 5. Indonesia
Jiri
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Jaroslav Reznik -
Jiri Eischmann -
Joe Brockmeier -
Marcel Ribeiro Dantas -
Matthew Miller