All is fair in love and marketing. Including airing your grievances on your very public Facebook page.

That’s exactly what Web-based food delivery startup Eat24 did recently, bringing its beef with Facebook (so to speak) out in the open in a scathing blog post.

The problem? Eat24 is upset that the posts it makes to its Page aren’t getting the same reach with Facebook users that they did in the past.

“When we first met, you made us feel special. We’d tell you a super funny joke about Sriracha and you’d tell all our friends and then everyone would laugh together,” Eat24 said, in a mock “Dear John” letter format. “But now? Now you want us to give you money if we want to talk to our friends.”

The crux of the problem lies in a number of changes Facebook is making to its News Feed algorithms, according to recent reports, that when implemented will drastically reduce the number of people who will see a marketer’s posts.

Instead, it’s a way to shift marketers over to actually forking over cash to Facebook by paying to promote their posts to their thousands — or in some cases millions — of followers.

“Now when we show you a photo of a taco wrapped with bacon, you’re all like ‘PROMOTE THIS POST! GET MORE FRIENDS!’ instead of just liking us for who we are,” Eat24 wrote. “That’s hella messed up.”

It’s a cute way of making a point, yet a serious issue for marketers on the platform. After brands have spent years amassing “Likes” and followers, Facebook has essentially rendered all that work and fanbase building useless, unless they decide to fork over cash. Eat24 may have made one less friend in Facebook, but the startup has a valid argument.

Alas, Facebook wasn’t having it. Brandon McCormick, one of Facebook’s public relations employees, delivered just as much sass in a public comment posted to Eat24’s Facebook page.

“The world is so much more complicated than when we first met — it has changed,” McCormick wrote. “There is some serious stuff happening in the world and one of my best friends just had a baby and another one just took the best photo of his homemade cupcakes and what we have come to realize is people care about those things more than sushi porn (but if we are in the mood for it, we know where to find it Eat24!).”

“So we are sorry that we have to part this way because we think we could still be friends — really we do,” McCormick wrote. “But we totally respect you if you need some space.”

Ouch. A funny retort, yes — but perhaps it’s not so funny for the rest of the brands out there grousing over Facebook’s new Pages strategy.


Though @Carrie Morgan  pointed out well that the post was a whiney complaint, so too the article that says "...yet a serious issue for marketers on the platform. After brands have spent years amassing “Likes” and followers, Facebook has essentially rendered all that work and fanbase building useless, unless they decide to fork over cash. "

Anyone/any company doing 'business' on $FB should know that at a point they are going to take levels of their stepped freemium service and monetize it because (a) their shareholders expect it, (b) services provided have to be paid for at some point, (c) all the datacenters $FB has, cost money to run, ad infinitum...

Come to think of it, not sure why this is even a story as it does not provide in-depth useful information on (a) $FB monetization strategy, (b) alternative strategies for companies wanting to go elsewhere, nor (c) usage of the service by existing $FB customers who are making bank using it....instead we get generalized if it bleeds it leads statements of "...
according to recent reports, that when implemented will drastically reduce the number of people who will see a marketer’s posts"...

So much for investigative journalism and sources...

feedback to recode /s

Carrie Morgan
Carrie Morgan

While that post was clever, it was still a whiny complaint; a post version of a toddler screaming and stamping its food in a very public  temper tantrum when Mommy won't comply. How dare a large company expect to make money!!! <stomp> How dare they change over the years as their own needs change! <stomp>

When we dish out our grumbles in public, I think it's perfectly fair for the "target" to respond. The increase in passive-aggressive activity is worrisome and becoming far too acceptable. When you invest time in a free tool that isn't owned, expect changes. You won't like all of them. That, IMO, is the price of "free." If you don't like it, move on or invest in your own owned resources. 

Facebook never promised it would be free forever, or hid the fact that it is an advertising-based resource. 

Would you complain when you purchased an ad in a magazine, gained subscribers to your email newsletter because of that ad, who later left? Is it the fault of the magazine that you didn't retain them? No. Same thing goes on social media platforms! If you gain followers on Facebook, free or paid, it is up to you and your conversion processes to migrate them over to your owned resource. If you don't that is your failing, not Facebook's. 


 The (invisible) problem here  is that Facebook is reporting "conversions" when most of them are actually "view-through-conversions". Say you own a big website with many millions of customers. Chances are that these customers have an account with Facebook. You do an advertising there and guess what. Any customer that was shown your ad (and Facebook knows them thanks to its technology) will be reported under conversions EVEN if they didn't click your ads (the ads were just shown).

This is very very misleading since most advertisers don't have the technical capabilities to show the conversion tracking pixel just to people who actually came from Facebook. What advertisers end up paying for is an ad shown to their customers but that didn't help them to convert. They end up paying for sales they would've made anyway!

Facebook should report click-through-conversions separately of view-through-conversions as Google does. Or label them appropriately. Our tests shown 99% buyers reported there never clicked our FB ads. This is actually the reason why Facebook paid so much for Instagrams and especially Whatsapps. To hear more of what you're talking and deliver ads to customers from sites they go to.

This strategy will hurt Facebook a lot. Wait to see what happens in a few years, once advertisers discover that those conversions are not new customers!

So, why pay to get higher exposure? So you can reach your own customers??


The new rules better reflect the interests of the viewers, and in my opinion help marketers who can be bothered putting together meaningful communications.

Under the old system any innovative or meaningful posts (commercial or otherwise) were lost to whoever could post with a higher frequency.

Now if too-few people are liking a post (commercial or otherwise) then it will sink into obscurity. The result is that marketers will need to be less lazy and less spammy with their communications. (Or be willing to pay a cost for that laziness.)

If marketers think this isn't helpful, they need to realise why mailing lists are so unpopular with consumers, and that their audiences attention is already been drawn against the posts of many other marketers - under the old system their messages weren't being seen anyway.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 309,032 other followers