9:11 a.m.
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(a)fedoraproject.org>
"Tepid change for the somewhat better!"
9:54 a.m.
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
11:35 a.m.
2014-04-10 11:54 GMT-03:00 Jiri Eischmann <eischmann(a)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.
--
Marcel Ribeiro Dantas,
Biomedical Engineering Researcher at LAIS
Laboratory for Technological Innovation in Healthcare (LAIS-HUOL)
Free Software Advocate - "An idea is only knowledge, when shared."
http://mribeirodantas.fedorapeople.org
mribeirodantas at fedoraproject.org
mribeirodantas at lais.huol.ufrn.br
11:58 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 04/10/2014 09:54 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
The heartbleed
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.
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(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTRs2cAAoJEKbW5zOgIHzUX44IAJMAIVYTG7BmTjVVQCs8QgfS
rpFeCwc+kvukjopcqDn9qr/susFnbudvZPWnQhDy2rOVh2YsEzPLYsZvpZ5DQoVB
SS6uA2R0rKWnoXxZ7q8b3aMdoJHyZSJmmIW5sBgmwRvu5T1KmiWqhOji2J/ySW2g
i8PuWy04e3Qbe5xcJhCT3Iu269O0dm+Yvs9m4jx7G+hK98YcUeKS7W7VJsiSbu+y
W7zm9L53u+rl2yAXNvSl/LbbEQUiG2CMJXGnK/7s8B8XHhfRURzkqNLnIftEORam
E3xs4952WP2SVH7NeOMQT9k41bNGSeKPUohMdIzs/vp7DWbkm3kOFZAgvJd7iQ4=
=ExUM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
12:31 p.m.
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.
--
Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
"Tepid change for the somewhat better!"
3:48 a.m.
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
3:57 a.m.
----- 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.
4:41 a.m.
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(a)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
1933
days inactive
2018
days old
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Jaroslav Reznik -
Jiri Eischmann -
Joe Brockmeier -
Marcel Ribeiro Dantas -
Matthew Miller