As we all know, Facebook has run into some serious issues in the last few weeks with the rollout of a number of new features, and the new Community Pages are proving to be no exception.
Over 6 million Community pages were created in mid April around activities, such as Taking a Nap or Hiking. These pages are populated primarily with content from Facebook members that is determined to be public information, but without user approval. On many pages, there is also a tab with a definition taken from Wikipedia and a listing of your friends who "like" this Page.
The stated goal for this move is that to help Facebook more clearly identify what users care about and achieve higher search engine results for Community Pages on any topic imaginable. It will also allow for additional content for ad placements, and this enormous number of pages can decrease the cost for advertsers. It is also clear that they are moving into spaces currently owned by crowd sourcing companies such as Mahalo and Aardvark--and why not, they have access to such an enormous wealth of content.
Most users are not aware of how these pages are being populated, or where
their data is being published. More importantly, users cannot add content to
these pages, unless of course they update their status with a relevant
keyword and then that content is automatically published to the page.
There¹s no Wall, and there¹s no way to post photos or videos. Facebook
intends to eventually allow users to upload their photos to the page, but
for the moment, it seems to me that calling these pages "community pages" is
a bit of an oxymoron.
Also problematic is the way the data is being parsed, meaning with almost no
meta data associated with it, so that confusion and errors are rampant. For
example, the hiking page. Facebook just collects any post that uses the word
hiking in it and aggregates it--regardless of how it's being used. So this
can definitely lead to errors and misinterpretations.
As for advertisers, Simon Axten, a Facebook spokesman said, ³We think that
creating a good user experience that will make users more interested in
interacting with Facebook is good for advertisers, but there is no direct
benefit because of these changes. The links to Pages won¹t change what
information advertisers have access to; Facebook has long helped advertisers
target ads based on user demographics and professed interests. However, the
increased user interaction with Pages should help companies engage more
users."
But a more honest assessment of the dangers for brands is well stated here:
"Facebook has just made it harder for its partners to manage their
reputations" and I completely agree. Please read the full post here:
http://www.allfacebook.com/2010/04/the-problem-with-community-pages/ Facebook has unleashed a variety of new features but they were not fully
vetted as far as privacy or data integrity, and I think there will be a
backlash by both users and companies as time goes by and everyone sees the
implications of these new tools. It is still early as not all the data is
in, but I do think brands need to be careful. I am not saying stay away
from Facebook, but vigilant monitoring of key terms and conversations would
be recommended.
