Peter Fletcher

  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact

Why paying for a Facebook audience is a bad, bad investment

March 23, 2014 by Peter Fletcher

Facebook logo stabbed by a knife

Building an audience on Facebook is a bad investment. Image: mkhmarketing http://www.flickr.com/photos/mkhmarketing/8527429088/


Facebook pages were once the must-have tool in the marketers tool shed.

They’re not anymore!

Marketers need to know three things about a Facebook audience. One, you’ll need to spend money on advertising to build the audience in the first place. Two, you’ll need to spend money on advertising to get your message read by that same audience. Three, Facebook have a long history of obfuscating their intentions so expect to spend money in other ways in the future.

Want some evidence?

According Social@Ogilivy, Facebook pages now have a organic reach of just 6 percent. And they believe that number is headed to 0 percent. Yes, that’s right, zero.

What that means is that exactly zero of the thousands of people who’ve liked your page will see your posts in their newsfeed. Unless, of course, you shell out more money on a Facebook advertising campaign.

Think about that for a minute. For years now Facebook have been telling businesses to develop audiences on Facebook. They’ve been tricking businesses into paying for advertising to build the number of people who like their page. Now they want those same businesses to pay again, this time to get their message read.

That’s like buying a new car, driving off the lot and then finding out you can only buy petrol from the dealer.

And while your thinking, imagine for a moment if every business with a Facebook page decided to advertise. Clearly, Facebook won’t be able to put every page into everyone’s newsfeed so guess what’s going to happen. Yep, there’ll be a bidding war just like realestate.com.au is doing with agents in Australia. The only way to get your message in front of the audience you paid to build will be to spend even more money.

You tell me if you think that’s a smart move.

Want some alternatives?

On Facebook an audience an illusion
When you hit send button to your email list you can pretty much guarantee how many people will open it. Not so on Facebook. According to Time magazine organic reach of page posts have been steadily declining since around 2012. If you want to reach an audience get a website, a CRM system and start building an email list.

On Facebook you have close to zero control the appearance of your page
On a website you have total control over what your site looks like and how it behaves. Not on Facebook where the only substantive thing you can change is the cover pic. Like, wow man! But even that is subject to Facebook’s petty rules about the amount of text and limitations on calls to action. Spend the money you were thinking of wasting on Facebook on improving your website. It’ll be yours forever and no-one can take it away.

Still keen to invest in building a Facebook audience? Share your reasons in the comments below.

Filed Under: Marketing Tagged With: ethics, Facebook, Facebook advertising, Facebook Pages, marketing ethics

The ethics of shark culling

January 24, 2014 by Peter Fletcher

A shark swims with fish

Sharks are the subject of a divisive community debate. Image: Steve Garner http://www.flickr.com/photos/22032337@N02/

Should the WA government kill sharks to protect swimmers?

To contextualise this discussion the facts in brief are as follows:

There have been 11 fatal shark attacks in WA since 2000. 3 fatal attacks occurred in less than 3 months during 2011.

Fatal shark attacks cause great suffering to the deceased (presuming they weren’t killed instantly), and to their loved ones.

The Premier of Western Australia Colin Barnett believes that “[The] mood of the community has probably hardened, particularly among surfers [and] beach-goers…the protection of human life comes first.”

The Western Australian government has ordered that baited lines be deployed within shark kill zones between September and April. Sharks that are over 3 metres will be killed.

Protests in WA and throughout Australia have expressed anger at the decision by the WA government.

How do we weigh up the different ‘goods’ that come from shark culling? 

On the one hand killing sharks may result in less human death or injury. If we accept that Premier Barnett’s assertion that “human life comes first” is the sole criteria for the decision then all sharks capable of killing a human being should be killed.

Clearly that position is problematic because not all sharks capable of killing a human actually commit the act.

This is a view shared by thousands. Protesters rejected the “human life comes first” approach arguing that the cull “goes against all available science.”

According to this line of reasoning large sharks deserve special treatment especially because they are apex predators. As such  they are important for the health and balance of the ecosystems in which they live. If too many are killed then the ocean’s ecosystem might collapse.

But the apex predator argument is not without problems of it’s own. Should all apex predators be treated as protected? Should a farmer in Africa lay down his gun while a lion eats his first born? Or should Grizzly bears be allowed to wander unchecked  through suburban Alaska and snack on slow moving old people?

In these circumstances killing an apex predator would be justified on the basis that the harm caused to the environment by the death of the lion or bear would be more than outweighed by the reduction of harm to the humans involved.

So the fact of being an apex predator provides sharks with no greater protection than it gives the lion or bear. 

That is unless you argue that the lion and the bear are on the human’s turf. This line of reasoning goes that if an apex predator should stray into the human’s patch then the human has the right to defend itself.

On the surface that argument sounds plausible but it fails to address where the human’s patch starts and finish. 

Does it finish at a person’s boundary fence? At the limits of their town or suburb? 1 kilometre into into the bush or ocean?

Without a clear demarkation the argument is contested over ownership of territory.

How then are we to settle think through this issue.

One position that survives the move from farm or neighbourhood into the water is the ethical position to maximise the ‘goods’ available to the human.

That means weighing up the benefits of a short-term defence of human life against providing humans with a sense that they’ve accounted for the the long-term needs of humans to live in a stable ecosystem.

To answer this conundrum we need to ask: Is the taking the life of a shark (or sharks) justified in order to potentially save the life of a human being?

Or, to pose the question in a different way: Are we duty bound to defend human life or the longterm balance of the ecosystem?

My position on the shark cull

Will the death of a shark or sharks cause any longterm instability in the ecosystem?

Outside of some breathless pseudo-environmental arguments that posit the impending collapse of the ocean’s ecosystem I’ve not seen or read anything that compels me to form the view that the shark cull will cause any long term damage.

Without being burdened by the environmental issue I need only address this issue on the merits of the short term good that comes from the protection of human life.

It’s tempting to stop there but I’m of the view that the end doesn’t justify the means.

Recalling our lion and bear examples the killing of both is clearly a defensive measure. The suffering of a human is reduced or eliminated by the action of shooting the animal.

The same cannot be said about killing sharks. They are killed because of their size and proximity to a populated beach, not because of their perceived intention to gnaw on a human.

Whereas the regrettable act of killing the lion or bear could be rationalised by self defence the same can’t be said about the killing of a shark. The act of killing is a step or two or ten too far removed from the need for defence. Therefore, the killing of sharks can’t be justified on the basis of self defence.

Indeed I find the nexus between killing sharks and the protection of human life so tenuous as to be indefensible. It is my view that the cull can survive little more than the slightest of critiques that it’s a politically motivated stunt.

That being the case I’m left with no alternative but to oppose the cull.

 

 

Filed Under: Personal Tagged With: apex predators, Colin Barnett, ethics, shark cull, sharks

My 7 Rules For Civil Behaviour on Facebook

February 19, 2011 by Peter Fletcher

Here are the rules I use on Facebook, especially when a conversation gets robust.

  1. Disagree without being disagreeable. Never resort to name calling or online sledging. Leave that to AFL footballers and brogans.
  2. Never say ‘Yes, but…’. A but negates everything said immediately prior so just get to the point. There’s no need to butter people up.
  3. Don’t generalise.Avoid making broad, sweeping statements such as “Everyone knows you don’t believe that!”
  4. Don’t respond to trolls. Trolls thrive on the attention they get making inflammatory and derogatory remarks. Leave them be and let their rubbish slip off the bottom of the newsfeed.
  5. Have thick skinSome stuff I see on Facebook can be downright galling. Best to let these short pitched deliveries through to the keeper.
  6. Don’t assume what another person is thinking and especially don’t put those thoughts in writing. A statement such as ‘clearly you’ve missed my point’ assumes something that’s not possible to know.
  7. Don’t respond angry. The worst damage is always done when the blood pressure is up. Calm down first.

What rules do you use?

Filed Under: Facebook Tagged With: civility, ethics, Facebook

About Peter

Speaker, trainer and coach. I write about living, loving and working better. Love a challenge. More...

Subscribe

Get the latest posts delivered to your inbox.

Recent Posts

  • The Perth Property Market: Free Drinks For Everyone
  • Perth Property Market Performance – W/E 22 August 2021
  • Perth property market report
  • Mandating madness: The case against compulsory e-conveyancing
  • PEXA: Stop treating conveyancers like idiots

Top Posts & Pages

  • Foucault on Confession
  • Why saying "You've got potential" can be the worst thing to say
  • Home Page
  • Deconstructing queer theory | Steven Seidman
  • Foucault on power relations
  • The panspectron: Panopticon improved?
  • My bounce rate is too high and what I'm doing about it
  • 7 unconventional behaviours of inspiring leaders
  • Who owns the client data in your business?
  • The world's worst real estate photos

Location

You can find me at Residential Settlements in Burswood.

5/170 Burswood Road
Burswood WA 6100

Let’s catch up

If you're ready to take your business to the next level, get in touch with me now.

Send me an email using the contact form or call me direct on 0419 538 838.

Connect

Connect with me on one of these social networks.
  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter

Copyright © 2022 · Agency Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in