WebProNews

Tag: sponsored stories

  • Facebook Sponsored Stories Will Officially Die On April 9th

    Back in June, Facebook announced that it was going to get rid of some of its ad units in an effort to eliminate some redundancies, as many of its offerings accomplished the same goals.

    The company hinted at the demise of the Sponsored Story unit, instead opting to “include the best of sponsored stories in all ads.”

    “Previously, to get the best social context available, advertisers had to purchase sponsored stories in addition to ads,” Facebook’s Fidji Simo said at the time. “In the future, for example, when you create a Page post photo ad, we will automatically add social context to boost performance and eliminate the extra step of creating sponsored stories. We know social enhances ad resonance; people are influenced by this type of word-of-mouth marketing. Research from Nielsen, comScore, and Datalogix shows that social context can drive awareness and return on ad spend, so we want to make it easier to add it to our ads. These changes will happen in the fall.”

    In the breaking changes on its developer site (hat tip: AllFacebook), Facebook says it will sunset the creation of sponsored stories on April 9th when domain and open graph sponsored stories will no longer be allowed to be created, and existing ones will cease to have delivery.

    “Page post and page like ads already automatically have the best social context (likes and comments) added,” the page reiterates.

    Last month, Facebook introduced its new video ads as well as desktop app ads.

    Image via Facebook

  • Yes, Facebook May Owe You $10; That Email Isn’t a Scam

    Million and millions of U.S. Facebook users received an email last weekend that read LEGAL NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION – just like that, in all caps. It says that “a federal court authorized this notice,” and that it’s “not a solicitation from a lawyer.”

    It also tells you that you may be entitled to up to $10, coming directly from the deep pockets of Facebook.

    Although it may sound like a scam (in fact it really, really sounds like a scam), you can rest assured that it is 100% legit. You can proceed with your claim without fear – but you may not want to.

    This past weekend, another large group of Facebook users received the Settlement email, which stems from an ongoing class action lawsuit that was first filed in early 2012. Facebook settled the lawsuit, which claimed that the company had infringed upon the privacy rights of users when they used their likenesses, photos, and activity in Sponsored Stories ads without consent, compensation, or the ability to opt-out.

    The initial settlement was rejected, however, and Facebook was forced to rework the terms. In December 2012, a judge issued a preliminary ruling approving the new terms: a $20 million settlement that will see the majority handed out to users or to various charities and advocacy groups. It all depends on how many claims are filed.

    What Facebook has done, in the simplest of terms, is create a giant fund that can be used to pay class members. If you received an email, it means that you are eligible to sign on as a class member because your activity or likeness was used in a Sponsored Story prior to December 3rd, 2012. The amount that each claimant will receive depends on how many people jump in the pool. If too many people file a claim, and it’s “economically infeasible” to pay out everyone, the fund will be distributed to around a dozen non-profits who all operate to “teach adults and children how to use social media technologies safely,” or to “protect the interest of children.

    They are:

    Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Joan Ganz Cooney Center, Berkman Center for Internet and Society (Harvard Law School), Information Law Institute (NYU Law School), Berkeley Center for Law and Technology (Berkeley Law School), Center for Internet and Society (Stanford Law School), High Tech Law Institute (Santa Clara University School of Law), Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood, Consumers Federation of America, Consumer Privacy Rights Fund, ConnectSafely.org, and WiredSafety.org.

    If you received the settlement notice, you have five options. You can either submit a claim, which makes you eligible for the $10, but prevents you from joining any other action against Facebook in this realm. Or you can exclude yourself, which lets you retain your ability to sue Facebook in matters pertaining to Sponsored Stories. If you do nothing, you give up your right to both the money and future litigation.

    There’s also options to object to the settlement or attend a hearing, neither of which will really be considered by most users.

    If you decide to file a claim, however, you should know that you’ll be attesting to a few things that might be difficult to attest to (for the more informed Facebook user). As pointed out by Forbes, you’ll agree that you were “not aware that Facebook could be paid a fee for displaying actions such as these, along with my name and/or profile picture, to my Facebook friends,” and that you were truly “injured” by the display of your info in a Sponsored Story.

    Anyway, all of the information you need to take any route is available on a dedicated site for the suit, fraleyfacebooksettlement.com

    What’s just as interesting as the cy pres settlement is the set of changes that Facebook has agreed to implement as a result of the ruling. Facebook has promised to add new language to its terms, making Sponsored Stories easier to understand for the average user. Facebook has also agreed to implement better mechanisms for viewing past activities that may have been featured in Sponsored Stories, as well as set up tighter controls on what appears in the future.

    Here are all of those stipulations, as provided by the agreement in Fraley v. Facebook:

    • Revise its terms of service (known as the “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities” or “SRR”) to more fully explain the instances in which users agree to the display of their names and profile pictures in connection with Sponsored Stories
    • Create an easily accessible mechanism that enables users to view, on a going-forward basis, the subset of their interactions and other content on Facebook that have been displayed in Sponsored Stories (if any)
    • Develop settings that will allow users to prevent particular items or categories of content or information related to them from being displayed in future Sponsored Stories
    • Revise its SRR to confirm that minors represent that their parent or legal guardian consents to the use of the minor’s name and profile picture in connection with commercial, sponsored, or related content
    • Provide parents and legal guardians with additional information about how advertising works on Facebook in its Family Safety Center and provide parents and legal guardians with additional tools to control whether their children’s names and profile pictures are displayed in connection with Sponsored Stories
    • Add a control in minor users’ profiles that enables each minor user to indicate that his or her parents are not Facebook users and, where a minor user indicates that his or her parents are not on Facebook, Facebook will make the minor ineligible to appear in Sponsored Stories until he or she reaches the age of 18, until the minor changes his or her setting to indicate that his or her parents are on Facebook, or until a confirmed parental relationship with the minor user is established.

    As far as the money goes, you have until May 2nd to submit your claim. Or you can do nothing, of course. Personally, I don’t think I can file a claim that stipulates my ignorance on the fact that Facebook was making money off of Sponsored Stories. Plus, I don’t find myself feeling particularly wronged by the concept of a Sponsored Story. And in the end, filing a claim is simply more of a hassle than it’s worth.

    But if you completely disagree with me (as I’m sure many do), and you received an email, you can proceed with the knowledge that this is all legit. Happy claims filing.

  • Instagram’s New Privacy Policies Take Effect on Saturday

    Just a friendly reminder: those new Instagram policies that caused such a ruckus back in December go into effect this Saturday, January 19th (but without the clause that caused most of the ruckus).

    The new privacy policy and terms of service documents add a few new elements such as affiliate sharing and new arbitration rules, but do not contain any of the advertising language that led many users to accuse Instagram of trying to sell their photos without compensation.

    Here’s that language that Instagram attempted to slide into their privacy policy, but public backlash forced them to remove:

    Some or all of the Service may be supported by advertising revenue. To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.

    What we pointed out as sounding a lot like Facebook’s Sponsored Stories ad product sounded a lot like the selling of photos to many people. Instagram, who I don’t believe ever had real plans to “sell” user photos in that way, screwed up by using tricky, vague language to describe a future ad product that doesn’t even really exist yet.

    They acknowledged that inside an apology to users in which they pledged to remove the new ad terms from their proposed documents.

    “You also had deep concerns about whether under our new terms, Instagram had any plans to sell your content. I want to be really clear: Instagram has no intention of selling your photos, and we never did. We don’t own your photos – you do,” said co-founder Kevin Systrom.

    “Because of the feedback we have heard from you, we are reverting this advertising section to the original version that has been in effect since we launched the service in October 2010. Going forward, rather than obtain permission from you to introduce possible advertising products we have not yet developed, we are going to take the time to complete our plans, and then come back to our users and explain how we would like for our advertising business to work.”

    Basically, we got caught putting the cart before the horse and we’re sorry.

    So that doesn’t appear in the revised documents set to go into effect this weekend. But what does?

    First, there’s a new arbitration clause that forces users to opt-out if they want the ability to join class action suits in the future.

    “ARBITRATION NOTICE: EXCEPT IF YOU OPT-OUT AND EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DISPUTES DESCRIBED IN THE ARBITRATION SECTION BELOW, YOU AGREE THAT DISPUTES BETWEEN YOU AND INSTAGRAM WILL BE RESOLVED BY BINDING, INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION AND YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT OR CLASS-WIDE ARBITRATION,” says Instagram in big, bold lettering in the new terms of service.

    Instagram also put a clause in their privacy policy that mimics a change made by Facebook (after that meaningless site governance vote), which allows for sharing of user information back and forth between “affiliates.”

    You should read the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service before they take effect in four days.

  • Instagram Is About to Make Pretty Little Ads Out of Your Photos

    Instagram just updated its privacy policy to fall in line with Facebook’s updated data use policy allowing the transfer of user information back and forth across both services (or affiliates, as they call each other). That move was expected after Facebook recently adopted their own proposed policy changes after the third and final Site Governance vote failed to produce a binding mandate.

    Although the free flow of data across Facebook, Instagram, and its affiliates may be enough to cause concern, some added content to the latter company’s privacy policy has large-scale implications for not only user privacy on the site but also for how the service fundamentally operates.

    The updated terms of service, which go into effect on January 16th, include a good amount of new content. Instagram has taken the time to expand upon the terms & conditions, as well as the sections on proprietary rights in content. They’ve also included new sections on arbitration and added a few new disclaimers and liability waivers. The changes range from new language about bullying and harassment of other users on the network to new language concerning arbitration and Instagram’s opt-out process for participating in class-action lawsuits.

    Do you use Instagram? How do you feel about its new ability to share data with Facebook and vice versa? Will this new policy affect how you use the service? Will you stop altogether? Let us know in the comments.

    You can check out the updated terms of service here.

    But it’s one change in particular that hints at a new ad product that users could be really uncomfortable with – and it sounds a lot like one Facebook users should be all too familiar with – Sponsored Stories.

    Facebook Sponsored Stories, as you’re probably aware, use your friends’ already-completed actions across the site in order to promote a product or service. Burger King, for instance, pays for Facebook to display user actions concerning Burger King in their friends’ news feeds. You’ll recognize this as the “John Smith, Dan Baker, and Julie Clark like Burger King” stories on your news feed. Sponsored Stories can also include posts from the page in question, or check-ins and more. The idea behind them is that they feel more organic than traditional side-bar ads – and they do. Sponsored Stories pop up inside users’ news feed and are sometimes indistinguishable from non-sponsored stories, except for the “sponsored” tag that is easily glossed over. If done right, a Sponsored Story doesn’t really even feel like an ad – except for the fact that it’s totally an ad. A social media-specific, clever ad, but an ad nevertheless.

    On Facebook, Sponsored Stories are already prevalent on both mobile and desktop. That’s to say that they are hard to avoid. An average Facebook user that checks their news feed a couple of time a day will be hit with multiple Sponsored Stories ads. But starting soon, that same Sponsored ad saturation may affect everyone’s favorite hipsteriffic photo-filtering community, Instagram.

    Call it the Facebook influence on a company they just purchased, but Instagram has modified their terms to explicitly allow for the use of users’ likeness in connection with sponsored content. Here’s the new addition to the policy:

    Some or all of the Service may be supported by advertising revenue. To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you. If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to this provision (and the use of your name, likeness, username, and/or photos (along with any associated metadata)) on your behalf.

    And here is the old version, which doesn’t mention using users’ likeness in promotion, only that promotional content will in fact exist on the site:

    Some of the Instagram Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions, and you hereby agree that Instagram may place such advertising and promotions on the Instagram Services or on, about, or in conjunction with your Content. The manner, mode and extent of such advertising and promotions are subject to change without specific notice to you.

    So starting January 16th, Instagram has to go-ahead to use your photos in ads. Simple as that.

    Let’s take a look at what those ads could look like. Instagram gives itself the ability to let “a business or other entity pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take.” That could be something as simple as displaying the fact that Josh Wolford “liked” a photo by Starbucks on other users’ Instagram feed. That’s using my name, likeness, and actions to create an ad.

    But when you really look at the language, you see the type of ads the company is really planning on cashing in on.

    By giving Instagram the ability to use your photos with associated metadata in promotional content, you’re giving Instagram the ability to turn your pretty little lo-fi photos into incredibly organic-feeling advertisements. If you take a photo at a beautiful resort, that “associated metadata” knows where you took it. That means that your filtered photos of your toes in the ocean can be quickly turned into an ad for “Sunset Resort” in Key West.

    This is the first real attempt to monetize Instagram.

    Declan McCullagh over at CNET says that another tweak in the policy language could also mean that Instagram now has the authority to license your photos to anyone for use outside Instagram – think a giant stock photo database.

    “One section deletes the current phrase ‘limited license’ and, by inserting the words ‘transferable” and ‘sub-licensable,’ allows Facebook to license users’ photos to any other organization,” he says.

    Although that exact same language is repeated in Facebook’s ToS, nobody has complained that Facebook is creating a giant stock photo database of users’ personal photos.

    For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

    To me, Instagram’s new policy language seems to suggest Sponsored Stories inside the service using user photos, not turning the service into a Getty images of sorts, full of user-generated content. Although the language does discuss “sub-licensing,” meaning that sort of thing is not entirely off the table.

    We also have to consider what this means for the future, as Facebook and Instagram become closer. With Facebook and Instagram freely sharing information now, and with Instagram’s assurance that it “reserves the right, in our sole discretion, to change these Terms of Use from time to time,” who’s to say that an Instagram-Facebook ad product isn’t feasible? Your geo-tagged Instagram photos sure would look pretty nice as a Sponsored Story on a Facebook news feed, right? It sure feels like this is the logical conclusion of this whole thing.

    It appears that someone at Instagram/Facebook did their homework (as we would hope they would). The language of the new policy seems almost tailored to address all of the concerns brought up in Facebook’s very public Sponsored Stories legal battle, which has just entered its penultimate hour. In that case, a handful of users sued Facebook for using their likenesses in Sponsored Stories without their expressed consent and without compensation.

    With this privacy policy rewrite, Instagram is setting the stage to be able to make very pretty, very organic-feeling ads out of your content. Instagram has to start making money, and this is certainly a viable revenue source. Nobody should be surprised by this, considering the company was bought by Facebook for nearly a billion dollars.

    And as users, to think that a free service as popular as Instagram wouldn’t have to eventually come with ads, is short-sided and entitled. I guess you could always pay a subscription fee instead…

    But the bottom line is this: next time you snap a lo-fi filter on that burger photo, just know that you might be doing some unpaid photog work for whoever made it. You know what they say: if you’re not paying for a product, you are the product.

    What do you think about Instagram deploying Facebook-like Sponsored Stories? Should users accept that a business has to monetize, and this is just part of it? Or is this the kind of thing that would force you to stop using Instagram? Let us know in the comments.

  • Everyone Should Probably Just Put a Dick on All Their Instagram Photos Now

    UPDATE: Instagram Is Not, Nor Were They Ever Going to Sell Your Photos

    ORIGINAL ARTICLE: [Possibly NSFW drawing below]

    I know you’re mad about Instagram Facebook deciding that they wanted to make money from your favorite app. I know the fact that a free app may have to support itself via advertising is a total bummer. Nobody likes ads, no matter how “organic” companies make them. And nobody likes being an unpaid ad photographer.

    Because that’s what’s going on here. Instagram has updated their privacy policy to allow for the use of users’ likeness in ad products inside the service. That means that your photos (geotagged and all) can be promoted by companies who pay Instagram for the privilege. Take a gorgeous lo-fi photo of Caesar’s Palace? Well, it may wind up being used in an ad for Caesar’s Palace on Instagram.

    Sound familiar? That’s because it’s just like Facebook’s Sponsored Stories ad initiative. Here’s what Instagram has to say about what it’s going to do with your likeness and your photos:

    To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.

    Despite the epic freakout going on around you, Instagram can’t just up and sell your photos to anyone. They can allow companies to pay to use your photos in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions. But Instagram is not creating some giant stock photo database of your personal photos. They could, but they aren’t. Neither is Facebook, by the way. As Nilay Patel at The Verge points out,

    “…an advertiser can pay Instagram to display your photos in a way that doesn’t create anything new — so Budweiser can put up a box in the timeline that says “our favorite Instagram photos of this bar!” and put user photos in there, but it can’t take those photos and modify them, or combine them with other content to create a new thing. Putting a logo on your photo would definitely break the rules. But putting a logo somewhere near your photos? That would probably be okay.”

    You can still choose to hate this. That’s well within your rights, and it’s understandable. But you should know that Facebook has had the same kind of language in its ToS for a while now. Both companies have expansive license on your content. The only way to escape all of this is to simply not use Facebook or Instagram.

    But in case you want to stick with Instagram, may I suggest placing a NFSW watermark on all of your photos.

    Like this guy. Instagram user mattonlymoore has decided to fight fire with dick. “If Instagram is going to sell my photos, they will be selling photos with a dick and balls watermark,” he says.

    And that’s what you should do, if you’re mad about the possiblity of your photos being used as ads. Simply make your photos unusable in most ad scenarios. Problem solved.

    Or use another app. Whatever works.

    [via reddit]

  • Facebook’s Sponsored Stories Lawsuit Is in Its Penultimate Hour

    A couple of weeks ago, we told you that Facebook’s long-running Sponsored Stories lawsuit was likely on its way to coming to a close. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, upon reviewing a new settlement proposal from the social network, was less critical and stated that he would issue a ruling “very shortly.”

    Today, we have a preliminary ruling on the revised settlement: it’s good to go.

    “The court is satisfied that the revisions to the terms of the settlement are sufficient to warrant preliminary approval under the applicable standards,” said U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg. This isn’t the official end of the case, as Seeborg will consider final approval of the settlement in June of next year. But it does suggest that the case is in its penultimate stages.

    The lawsuit stems from a few California residents who claimed that Facebook violated their privacy rights when the company used their likenesses in their Sponsored Stories product without permission or compensation. Facebook’s first proposed settlement offer included a $10 million cy pres payment to charity, with an additional $10 million in leftover legal fees.

    Seeborg initially rejected that offer, citing concerns over the size of the cy pres payment as well as the fact that no money was going directly to users.

    Facebook revised the settlement, and that’s where we are today. Seeborg has issued preliminary approval of the revised proposal. Under this new settlement, Facebook users can each claim up to $10 in damages. It’s still a $20 million settlement, so that only totals out to 2 million users getting paid. As a stipulation of the revision, if enough users file claims on the damages as to push the amount-per-person below $5, most of the sum could end up going to advocacy groups.

    And of course, Facebook will keep their word and make sure information about their Sponsored Stories initiative is displayed more prominently on the site, as well as allow total opt-outs for minors and a “mechanism” for dealing with past activities and how they are featured in Sponsored Stories.

  • Facebook’s Sponsored Stories Lawsuit May Be Coming to a Close

    Facebook may finally be able to close the books on a long-running lawsuit that saw the company accused of major privacy violations corresponding to their Sponsored Stories initiative.

    Reuters reports that U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg was “much less critical” of Facebook’s revised proposal and said that he would issue a ruling “very shortly.”

    Back in August, Judge Seeborg rejected Facebook’s original settlement offer. The suit, which centered around Facebook’s use of users’ likeness in Sponsored Stories, was settled out of court by Facebook and the handful of California plaintiffs who originally brought the suit. Facebook agreed to pay a $10 million cy pres settlement to charity, with an additional $10 million going to any leftover legal fees.

    As a part of that agreement, Facebook also agreed to make some changes to their Sponsored Stories program – first and foremost increasing the visibility of information on the site. They also agreed to allow users to control their past activities and how they appeared in Sponsored Stories, as well as to let minors completely opt out of the program.

    In his denial, Judge Seeborg cited concerns about the size of the cy pres payment as well as the fact that no money was directly going to users (per class action status).

    “California Civil Code §3344, however, under which plaintiffs’ claims are brought, provides for statutory damages of $750 for any violation. It very well may be, as Facebook argues, that plaintiffs’ chances of obtaining a judgment awarding such statutory damages to class members are remote, but their potential availability must be considered in evaluating the fairness of any settlement. Merely pointing to the infeasibility of dividing up the agreed-to $10 million recovery, or the relatively small per-use revenue Facebook derived, is insufficient, standing alone, to justify resort to purely cy pres payments,” he said.

    Facebook then revised the settlement to allow users to apply for up to a $10 settlement, with any remaining funds (from the $20 million pool) going to charity.

    Now, it looks like the case could be ending any day now. During the Thursday hearing, Facebook attorney Michael Rhodes reminded Seeborg that his job here was to rule on the fairness of the settlement, not try to make privacy policy with a ruling.

    “Trust me, I’m not proposing to set grand policy with privacy issues writ large,” said Seeborg.

  • Facebook “Suggests” Posts from Outside Your Network

    Back in August, Facebook began a test that brought straight-up advertising to the news feed for the first time. This type of advertising isn’t really social, as it’s not based on the actions of friends.

    “[W]e are beginning a very small test that will allow marketers to promote page posts to people beyond their fans in the news feed,” said Facebook at the time.

    Translation: Facebook began allowing marketers to buy news feed ads for page posts that are way outside a user’s network. With a Sponsored Story in the news feed, the only way that it will show up is if you like the page or one of your friends likes the page. That way, the ads have some sort of social context and hopefully relevance. It’s the reason that Sponsored Stories can feel so organic as times.

    But with these news promoted page post ads, a user could see a post from a page they’ve never even heard of – much less liked or interacted with.

    Now, Facebook is continuing the test – this time with a new description for the ads. They still say “sponsored,” but they’ve also added “Suggested Post” to the stories.

    Since Facebook began this test, another type of non-social ad has popped up in users’ news feeds: the mobile app install ads. Last week, Facebook made the ads, which allow developers to highlight their apps in anyone’s news feed, available to everyone.

    Of course, advertising on Facebook has been a tricky venture since day one. The Sponsored Stories feel organic – that’s what they have going for them. These new types of promoted page post ads feel much less natural – because users and their friends aren’t really a part of them. What these new ads do have going for them is reach – the ability for marketers to target an audience that they wouldn’t have been able to reach before (in the news feed, at least).

    Have you seen these types of ads in your news feed?

    [Screenshot via Inside Facebook]

  • Facebook’s Sponsored Stories Lawsuit Gets New Settlement

    Facebook is making another attempt to bring an end to a lawsuit over their advertising practices – mainly their Sponsored Stories ads. This time, after having a settlement rejected back in August, Facebook has changed up the monetary aspect of the deal as well as added more safeguards for users within its settlement obligations.

    If you haven’t been following this particular case, it involves a class-action lawsuit filed by a handful of California plaintiffs. Their original complaint was that Facebook, through their Sponsored Stories, violated their privacy. They said that Facebook was guilty of using their likenesses in Sponsored Stories without their consent, compensation, or the choice to opt out. A few months ago, the parties hammered out a $20 million settlement that included a $10 cy pres payment to charity, along with the rest being designated to legal fees.

    Facebook also claimed that changes to the way Sponsored Stories are operated and presented to users could amount in damages of over $100 million.

    All seemed to be in order until a U.S. District Judge rejected the settlement, claiming concerns about the amount of the payout as well as the fact that no money seemed to be going straight to complainants. Facebook argued that the size of the possible complainant pool (over 100 million users) warranted the cy pres payment.

    “California Civil Code §3344, however, under which plaintiffs’ claims are brought, provides for statutory damages of $750 for any violation. It very well may be, as Facebook argues, that plaintiffs’ chances of obtaining a judgment awarding such statutory damages to class members are remote, but their potential availability must be considered in evaluating the fairness of any settlement. Merely pointing to the infeasibility of dividing up the agreed-to $10 million recovery, or the relatively small per-use revenue Facebook derived, is insufficient, standing alone, to justify resort to purely cy pres payments,” said Judge Richard Seeborg.

    Now, Facebook has come back with a revised settlement. This time, including provisions for complainants to receive a chunk of the payout.

    “The new agreement, which is also subject to Seeborg’s approval, allows for some of the funds to go to charity, but only if there is any left after users’ claims, attorneys fees and other expenses are met. But given the size of the class, the charities might still get some cash. The agreement provides that, if it is not economically feasible to pay all the users a cut, the court may designate the entire fund as going to the charities,” reports Reuters.

    Users would be able to apply for up to a $10 settlement.

    “”We believe the revised settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and responds to the issues raised previously by the court,” said Facebook.

    The revised settlement also enhanced the terms involving user privacy and protection – especially for minors. Previous versions of the settlement already tackled this, vowing to increase the visibility of information on Facebook’s ad practices and to allow users to control how past activities (ones made before the new terms) showed up in Sponsored Stories. Facebook also said they would let minors completely opt out of being used in these types of advertisements.

    Facebook has clarified exactly how they are going to help parents who want to opt out their children:

    Facebook will encourage new users, upon or soon after joining Facebook, to include in their profile information their family, including their parents and children. Where both a parent and a minor child are users and confirm their relationship, Facebook’s systems will record this confirmed parent/child relationship and utilize it as further described below.

    Facebook will add an easily accessible link in the Family Safety Center (https://www.facebook.com/safety) to the tool it currently provides that enables parents to prevent the names and likenesses of their minor children from appearing alongside Facebook Ads and Facebook will extend this tool to enable parents to also prevent the names and likenesses of their minor children from appearing in Sponsored Stories. Facebook will also implement a method for enabling parents with a confirmed parental relationship with a minor user to utilize this tool through their own Facebook accounts, without obtaining access to their children’s accounts.

    Finally, Facebook will add a control in minor users’ profiles that enables each minor user to indicate that his or her parents are not Facebook users. Where a minor user indicates that his or her parents are not on Facebook, Facebook will make the minor ineligible to appear in Sponsored Stories until he or she reaches the age of 18, until the minor changes his or her setting to indicate that his or her parents are on Facebook, or until a confirmed parental relationship with the minor user is established.

    The next step is to wait and see whether the Judge finds this settlement acceptable. While we wait, do you think it’s acceptable?

  • Facebook’s Sponsored Stories Settlement Denied

    A District Judge has denied, without prejudice, a settlement hammered out by Facebook and plaintiffs in a class-action suit directed at the companies advertising practices – more specifically their Sponsored Stories ads.

    The original suit involved five California plaintiffs that claimed Facebook had violated privacy laws with the manner in which they run their Sponsored Stories. Mainly, the plaintiffs complained that Facebook was guilty of using their likenesses in Sponsored Stories without their consent, compensation, or the choice to opt out. A few months ago, the parties reached a settlement outside of court that called for Facebook to pay $10 million in a cy pres settlement to charity, and up to an additional $10 million in legal fees.

    The settlement also included instructions for Facebook to change the way Sponsored Stories are employed and explained, a “penalty” that Facebook said would amount to over $120 million in damages.

    Now, District Judge Richard Seeborg has rejected the settlement due to questions regarding the monetary amount of the settlement. Earlier this month, Seeborg put the settlement on hold, citing these same concerns with the tangible cash payout to the privacy victims. And now he’s denied this version outright.

    In his order, Seeborg notes that the settlement fails to actually provide any relief to class members. Although he acknowledges that cy pres payments are common in case where “the proof of individual claims would be burdensome or distribution of damages costly” (Facebook has upwards of 100 million U.S. users), he says that under California law, each plaintiff could, in theory, be entitled to up to $750 in damages.

    California Civil Code §3344, however, under which plaintiffs’ claims are brought, provides for statutory damages of $750 for any violation. It very well may be, as Facebook argues, that plaintiffs’ chances of obtaining a judgment awarding such statutory damages to class members are remote, but their potential availability must be considered in evaluating the fairness of any settlement. Merely pointing to the infeasibility of dividing up the agreed-to $10 million recovery, or the relatively small per-use revenue Facebook derived, is insufficient, standing alone, to justify resort to purely cy pres payments.

    Basically, is the possible class size so large that it justifies this cy pres settlement?

    Seeborg also questions the specific amount of the cy pres payment. “Assuming that it may be appropriate to approve a settlement that provides for no cash distribution to class members in this case, the question will remain as to whether $10 million in cy pres recovery is fair, adequate, and reasonable,” he says.

    So it’s apparent that the settlement is on hold for at least a little while now, which leaves the other aspects of the settlement hanging in the wind. These policy-oriented stipulations would see Facebook give users more control over Sponsored Stories as well as amend their terms of service to provide more clarity and detail on the practice.

    “Facebook will create an easily accessible mechanism that enables users to view the subset of their interactions and other content that have been displayed in Sponsored Stories. Facebook will further engineer settings to enable users, upon viewing the interactions and other content that have been used in Sponsored Stories, to control which of these interactions and other content are edible to appear in additional Sponsored Stories,” said the settlement.

    It also allowed for minors to opt out of being featured as Sponsored Stories altogether.

    As of now, adults cannot opt out of the Sponsored Stories program.

    [Via Wired]

  • Facebook Tests Promoted Posts in Your News Feed from Pages Way Outside Your Network

    Soon, you may begin to see promoted posts from pages that your don’t even like – or your friends don’t even like. You may see a post from a brand that you’ve never even heard of.

    That’s because Facebook is testing a new ad format that will allow marketers to promote posts to users that have no real affiliation with the brand on the site. Yet.

    Of course, the hope is that these out-of-network promoted posts will reach a much broader audience and thus grab more users to “like” the page. These new promoted posts for non-likers will show up in the news feed, and will feature a “like” button at the top right corner and a “sponsored” denotation on the bottom.

    “Starting soon, we are beginning a very small test that will allow marketers to promote page posts to people beyond their fans in the news feed,” says Facebook.

    Facebook also says that these ads may show up on desktop and mobile.

    Before this test, any sort of promoted post or sponsored story that you saw in your news feed was there because you liked the page or because one of your friends liked the page. This new type of ad option would be huge for marketers, allowing them to reach a completely new audience of users who may have never heard of their brand. For instance, a new restaurant could target users in a certain city, even if they haven’t garnered any real “likes” yet.

    Of course, this is just a test, and Facebook runs hundreds of tests every month. But something tells me this one will stick. It’s a clever way for Facebook to expand ad revenue and an improved way for businesses to expand their reach on the network.

    But of course, it’s also Facebook getting one step closer to selling straight-up advertising on the site.

    [Image courtesy Inside Facebook]

  • Facebook’s Sponsored Stories Settlement Put On Hold

    In June, Facebook and five California plaintiffs reached a settlement in a lawsuit centered on the company’s ad product known as Sponsored Stories. You know the ones – posts that Facebook promote to the top of your news feed or to the side of your homepage. They are always based on previous user activity – a like or a check-in perhaps. “Greg Smith and 4 others like Amazon.com – Sponsored,” for instance.

    The plaintiffs in the case claimed that Facebook violated privacy law when they used their likeness in Sponsored Stories without their consent, compensation, and the ability to opt out.

    After nearly a year of negotiations, a settlement was reached that had Facebook pay legal fees as well as a cy pres payment which amounted to $10 million to charity. In all, the settlement has Facebook paying around $20 million.

    But that wasn’t the only part of the settlement. Under the terms, Facebook agreed to gives users more control over Sponsored Stories as well as amend their terms of service and various help pages to include more information on the ad practices.

    From the settlement:

    The proposed injunctive relief will provide significant benefits to the Class Members, and to future Facebook members. This relief will include changes to Facebook’s website, to remain for at least two years, to make it clear to all persons with Facebook accounts and the parents or legal guardians of minor users that their names and likenesses may be used in Sponsored Stories ads, thereby ensuring that Facebook has their consent to such uses.

    It goes on to allow provisions for minors (under 18) to opt out of being featured as Sponsored Stories completely. Users who are older than 18 will have some additional control – but no true opt out mechanism.

    Facebook will create an easily accessible mechanism that enables users to view the subset of their interactions and other content that have been displayed in Sponsored Stories. Facebook will further engineer settings to enable users, upon viewing the interactions and other content that have been used in Sponsored Stories, to control which of these interactions and other content are edible to appear in additional Sponsored Stories.

    Basically, users will be able to go back and look at which of their stories have been featured as Sponsored Stories, and will be able to prevent future use of those same stories. But there’s no mechanism here for future opt outs.

    All of those changes total about $123 million in damages, according to Facebook. Now, a federal judge has refused to approve the settlement, as he has questions about the actual cash payout.

    From Wired:

    [Judge Richard Seeborg] suggested he might order the parties to return to provide more information on how it reached that amount. He was concerned that Facebook said the deal might cost them $100 million in advertising revenues, but only $10 million is being paid out. And that doesn’t calculate the amount of damages for the 100 million Facebook users who have already appeared in Sponsored Stories, he said.

    “I’m not suggesting there is anything wrong with $10 million,” he said. “My question is: Why is it $10 million?”

    He went on to say that he’s going to have to give it a little bit of thought.

    The consequence to users? There is still no changes to Sponsored Stories in terms of opt outs or partial opt outs.

    “You can’t opt out of being featured in Sponsored Stories, but you can visit your activity log to make sure that only the people you want to share with can see your activity. If you’re aren’t using timeline yet, learn how to remove posts from your profile,” says the Facebook Help Center.

  • Facebook Is Putting Words In Users’ Mouths By Promoting Content From Pages They Like

    There’s a new feature making its way to the Facebook News Feed that has some people up in arms. And while I’m usually the first to defend Facebook against the wrath of whiny, misinformed, overreactions from the Facebook population – I have to say that this time, they may have a reason to be upset.

    You may or may not have seen a new type of post appear on your News Feed. It looks a lot like a promoted post, and shows that one or two or your friends “like” a certain page. Under that, it will show a recent post from said page. The main point though is that it’s not a promoted post, or a Sponsored Story. It’s simply Facebook promoting interaction with pages.

    For instance, yesterday I saw such a post that told me Chris Crum “likes” Bing. Under that information was the lastest thing that Bing had posted to their Timeline. Seem innocuous enough, right?

    Well, not always.

    The problem with posts like this is that they can give the wrong impression – and that wrong impression can lead to a lot of embarrassment, or even worse.

    ZDNet, who first reported on the issue, obtained this screenshot that captures (perfectly, I might add) the complications that can arise from this new type of post:

    It’s obvious that the user had simply “liked” drugstore.com in the past, which is harmless at the core. But when the algorithm included drugstore.com’s most recent post and it had to do with lube, well, to the untrained eye it appears that the user is simply posting a link to K-Y Warming Sensations.

    I’m sure you can see the problem here. It’s not a huge leap to imagine how something like this could be a reputation ruiner – or if nothing else cause someone to lose their auntie May’s friendship.

    Facebook has issued a statement on the new type of post, which is not accidental:

    To help people find new Pages, events, and other interesting information, people may now see posts from a Page a friend likes. These posts will include the social context from your friends who like the Page and will respect all existing settings.

    Who knows all of the crazy pages that I’ve liked after one too man beers. With this new feature, any of the hateful, ignorant swill that pours out of whoever runs the page’s mouth is going to look like my own – or least look like I endorse it. Part of this is my fault, of course. I did indeed “like” the page. But part of the blame has to rest on Facebook for not immediately noticing how these awkward situations could arise.

  • Facebook To Target Mobile Ads Based On App Usage [REPORT]

    Facebook, always looking for ways to boost revenues from advertising these days, is set to roll out a brand new product in the next couple of weeks, according to sources.

    The Wall Street Journal is reporting that this new ad product will allow advertisers to target users based on the apps that they commonly use. The advertising option will be for mobile, and will allow the ads to pop up directly in the users’ News Feed.

    For instance, if a users plays a lot of Zynga games like Words with Friends and Scramble with Friends, they may see a targeted ad for a different Zynga property like Hanging with Friends in their mobile feeds. The users wouldn’t have to have even “liked” Zynga on the network in order to receive this type of targeted ad.

    The way that Facebook will be able to monitor app usage and target users with ads for similar apps is, of course, through Facebook Connect.

    No word on whether or not the new types of targeted ads will come in the form of Sponsored Stories, which are currently the only types of mobile advertisements that Facebook users see.

    The WSJ got this from anonymous sources who also said that their is some concern about backlash from some top brass:

    But some Facebook executives are concerned about a potential backlash over the new mobile ads from privacy advocates, since the product allows Facebook to know which apps users have downloaded on their phones and then target ads based on that information. Facebook is also figuring out ways to track what people do when inside the apps, and target ads based on that behavior.

    Of course, monetizing their mobiel platform is a big concern for Facebook, and is one of the main areas that Facebook haters choose to point out as the reason for their lack of confidence. Last month, Facebook debuted new ad packages that allowed marketers to target their efforts specifically to mobile.

    And though some reports show that things may be looking up for Facebook on the ad revenue front, other reports show a decline in confidence among advertisers regarding the necessity of Facebook in their comprehensive marketing strategy.

  • Facebook Offers To Teach You About Their Ads While You View Their Ads

    Facebook advertising is on a lot of minds these days, which naturally means that it’s also under a bit more scrutiny. Maybe it’s because of this, or maybe they just felt like it was a proper thing to do – but whatever the case, Facebook has just made it a little bit easier to educate yourself about advertising on the site.

    Now, right next to where it says “Sponsored” on an ad, Facebook is displaying a small megaphone icon that when clicked, takes you to their “About Facebook Advertising” page.

    The page explains the basic three step process for how a Facebook ad is born – starting with the “when a business love Facebook very very much” stage and ending with Facebook telling you that you’ve ben geo and interest targeted to see said ad. The page also provides links to look closer into the details of personalized ads, as well as to browse your recently views ads and Sponsored Stories.

    Inside Facebook first spotted the new icon, and they say that Facebook may be tracking which kind of ad was present when users clicked the megaphone icon. Of course, that would allow Facebook to grab info on what kinds of ads users were most concerned or confused about.

    Facebook has been making some changes and additions to its advertising strategy as of late – first allowing advertisers to buy mobile-only Sponsored Stories as well as other individual targeted packages. A new real-time ad bidding client called Facebook Exchange is also said to be in pipeline. Plus, Facebook ads just started to appear on third-party sites like Zynga.com.

    But with change comes conflict. Some users have been unhappy with Sponsored Stories, in particular. They claimed that Facebook has been using their likeness as advertisements without their consent, without compensation, and without the ability to control how it’s being used. And in a recent settlement, Facebook has agreed to let users opt out of having their past activities used as Sponsored Stories.

  • Zynga.com, Now With More Facebook Ads and Sponsored Stories

    Zynga.com, Now With More Facebook Ads and Sponsored Stories

    Facebook ads are beginning to move offsite, and one of the most logical and unsurprising places to find them is Zynga.com. Nevertheless, it’s interesting to imagine how many other sites will begin to house Facebook ads and Sponsored Stories in the near future.

    Today, the Facebook ads began appearing on Zynga.com, Zynga’s dedicated platform launched back in March which houses their own games as well as other popular games from other developers. Although Zynga.com was a move away from Facebook, the integration with the social network was still ever-present. Now, when you connect to your Facebook account on Zynga.com, you’ll see a couple of new ads on the bottom right-hand corner.

    The ads resemble what you’d see on Facebook.com, as do the Sponsored Stories.

    The ads say “sponsored,” but also contain a little Facebook icon so that they read “Facebook Sponsored”:

    Facebook added an explanation of these news ads to their Help Center:

    When you connect with Facebook on Zynga.com, you’ll see personalized ads and sponsored stories. The Facebook ads you see on Zynga are the same ads you see on Facebook.com.

    • You’ll only see sponsored stories about activity that has been shared with you
    • You can remove ads that don’t interest you by clicking the X
    • Facebook doesn’t sell information that tells advertisers who you are

    Of course, one has to wonder if this is just the precursor to something much bigger – like an entire slew of Facebook ads on third-party websites. Josh Constine at TechCrunch points out that Facebook recently changed their terms to allow for the showing of regular ads offsite.

  • You’re Soon Going To Be Able To Opt Out Of Facebook’s Sponsored Stories

    Earlier this week, we told you that Facebook had settled a lawsuit centered around their Sponsored Stories with a $10 million cy-pres settlement which would have the money go to charity. The class-action case was brought by five plaintiffs from California who claimed that the Sponsored Stories violated state law by publicizing user data without compensation. They also contested Facebook’s Sponsored Stories policy, which currently does not not allow users to opt out.

    In short, they sued because Facebook has been using their likeness as advertisements without their consent, without compensation, and without the ability to control how it’s being used.

    What we didn’t know, however, is that as part of the settlement, Facebook has also agreed to amend its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities as well as implement an opt-out mechanism for users who do not wish to have their past activities used as Sponsored Stories.

    Reuters reports that “Under the terms of a settlement agreement filed on Wednesday, Facebook members will be able to control which content can be used for Sponsored Stories. Facebook agreed to maintain these changes and other new disclosures for at least two years, according to court documents.”

    Of course, this doesn’t mean that you won’t see Sponsored Stories in your news feed, just that you’ll now have more control over which of your activities can be used as Sponsored Stories that your friends see.

    Here’s exactly what the settlement says under “User visibility and control over Sponsored Stories”:

    Facebook will create an easily accessible mechanism that enables users to view the subset of their interactions and other content that have been displayed in Sponsored Stories. Facebook will further engineer settings to enable users, upon viewing the interactions and other content that have been used in Sponsored Stories, to control which of these interactions and other content are edible to appear in additional Sponsored Stories.

    This little change is supposedly worth about $103.2 million in lost revenue for Facebook, according to the settlement.

    As you can see, the future “mechanism” will allow users to opt out of past activities being used as Sponsored Stories, and there’s no mention of a blanket “opt out of any and all association with Sponsored Stories” option. The fact that users are going to have to go into settings and chose which stories they don’t want appearing as Sponsored Stories again, at least for the time being, seems to be a saving grace for Facebook. The other, more inclusive opt out would be a much bigger problem for the social network.

    The opt out mechanism isn’t the only thing included in the settlement. Facebook will also have to amend its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities to say something like:

    You give us permission to use your name, profile picture, content, and information in connection with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us. This means, for example, that you permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name an/or profile picture with your content or information. If you have selected a specific audience for your content of information, will will respect your choice when we use it.

    So, it’s basically fleshing out what a Sponsored story really is in their Terms of Service. Facebook has never misled users in regards to what a Sponsored story is, but this puts it a little more front and center in the SRR. Facebook also agreed to update their Family Safety Center with more information on advertising.

    Earlier this week, we told you how Facebook’s mobile advertising (which only consists of Sponsored Stories) was succeeding in terms of click-through rate – much more than other forms of advertising on the site. After the IPO fallout, analysts have been concerned with Facebook’s ability to monetize mobile – and allowing users to opt out of Sponsored Stories is obviously detrimental to Facebook’s plans in this area.

    Check out the full settlement below, courtesy TechCrunch:

    [TechCrunch] Facebook Sponsored Stories Class-Action Lawsuit Settlement

  • Facebook Settles Sponsored Stories Lawsuit With $10 Million To Charity

    A northern California district judge has said that “economic injury” could be proven by plaintiffs suing Facebook over Sponsored Stories, and Facebook has agreed to settle the lawsuit with a $10 million charity donation.

    The complaint at the heart of Angel Fraley et al vs. Facebook was with the legality of the company’s relatively new types of ads – Sponsored Stories. You’ve probably seen them appearing with more frequency inside your News Feed – “Sam Johnson likes Starbucks – Promoted,” and such. Sponsored Stories allows advertisers to promote a user’s activity, for instance liking a product or playing a certain game, after the fact.

    Of course, the thought behind Sponsored Stories is that a recommendation that looks like its coming from a friend or family member is worth a whole lot more than a standard ad you might see on the side of the page.

    For the five people involved in this lawsuit, Facebook’s Sponsored Stories are a violation of California law because they “publicize” user data without compensation, and the uncompensated users are also unable to opt out of having their activities (and names and images) used as adverts.

    According to Reuters the suit, which was seeking class-action status, was actually settled outside of court last month – but was just recently made public.

    In holding up the plaintiffs’ claim for economic damages, District Judge Lucy Koh said,

    “California has long recognized a right to protect one’s name and likeness against appropriation by others for their advantage.”

    While the Sponsored Story may continue to run up against California law, that’s not the only place where Facebook could see some opposition. This lawsuit is definitely not the first of its kind around the world. Back in April, a Vancouver woman filed a similar suit in a British Columbia court.

    She claimed that Facebook fails to acquire users’ consent or even give users notification that their likenesses are being used in Sponsored Stories, nor do they compensate them or allow them to opt-out. She claimed that these actions were in violation of Canadian law and called Facebook’s Sponsored Stories “high-handed, outrageous, wanton, reckless, callous, disgraceful, willful and entirely without care for the plaintiffs and Class members’ statutory right to control the use of their own names or portraits, and as such renders Facebook liable to pay punitive damages.”

    Facebook currently handles Sponsored Stories differently that more traditional advertisements that contain organic content from the advertiser as well:

    We sometimes allow businesses or anyone else to sponsor stories like the ones that show up in your News Feed, subject to the audience set for that story. While these are sponsored, they are different from ads because they don’t contain a message from the person that sponsored them. Your friends will see these stories even if you have opted out of the Show my social actions in Facebook Ads setting.

    The $10 million that Facebook will pay in the California case is part of a cy-pres settlement, which means that all of the money can go to charity.

  • Facebook Advertisers Can Now Buy Mobile-Only Sponsored Stories

    You know how everyone is worried about Facebook’s ability to monetize their mobile platform in this tenuous post-IPO period? Today, they might have just taken a significant step in at least moving in the direction of assuaging some of those concerns.

    Now, if you want to be a mobile-only advertiser, you can do so with Sponsored Stories. Before, advertisers couldn’t specify exactly where they wanted their Sponsored Stories to appear. Starting today, they can pinpoint exactly where they want their ads to show up.

    Facebook now gives five options to advertisers making purchases through the ads API and Power Editor:

    • All placements: this option includes right-hand side +News Feed desktop+ News Feed mobile
    • All desktop placements: this option includes right-hand side + News Feed desktop
    • News Feed (desktop and mobile): this option includes News Feed desktop + News Feed mobile
    • News Feed desktop: this option includes News Feed desktop only
    • News Feed mobile: this option includes News Feed mobile only

    As you can imagine, this kind of control has been oft requested from those who purchase Sponsored Stories, so advertisers have to be happy. And the happiness that comes with the ability to target to just the news feed or just the mobile news feed could entice them to be a little more free with the ad dollars.

    Here’s what Facebook had to say in a statement:

    Facebook is always looking for ways to improve products and has responded to requests from marketers to control the placement of their sponsored stories. As companies are promoting services more frequently on mobile, this option gives them the opportunity to focus on specific placements that will impact them most directly.

    Sponsored stories that appear in the news feed (whether it’s desktop or mobile) feel more natural than stories that appear on the right-hand side, and may be a better option for some businesses. Sponsored stories simply take already-completed activities such as “liking” a page or topping a high score in a game and promotes them, so they often feel more organic that other types of ads. Users’ inability to opt out of sponsored stories has been a point of contention, however, and Facebook just settled a lawsuit out of court a couple of weeks ago regarding that point.

    But, these Sponsored Stories are the only ads that users currently see when accessing Facebook mobile, and they aren’t going anywhere. Having the ability to put all their eggs in that basket could excite some advertisers who wish to use a scope instead of a shotgun when it comes to their targets.

  • Facebook Settles In Sponsored Stories Lawsuit

    Facebook has settled a lawsuit over their Sponsored Stories feature out of court today. The terms of the settlement have not been disclosed. A document filed yesterday (PDF) notified the court that the parties in the case had reached a settlement agreement which would be formalized in a second document to be filed today.

    According to Reuters, that document has been filed today and the settlement has officially been reached. The terms of the settlement are not clear at present, however, as the court documents do not disclose them.

    The class action suit was filed last year in U.S. District Court in California. The plaintiffs alleged that Facebook was publishing their activity without their consent through the use of its Sponsored Stories feature. Sponsored Stories is Facebook’s attempt to blend its advertising with basic social networking features. In a nutshell, companies with Facebook pages pay Facebook extra to ensure that when you like that company’s brand page, Facebook makes a point of letting all your friends know about it by publishing it to their newsfeeds with the heading “Sponsored Story.” Case in point:

    Sponsored Stories

    The big problem with all this is that Facebook doesn’t give you the chance to opt out. If a company has paid Facebook to use you to promote their brand, then Facebook is going to use you to promote their brand. As you might imagine, some people had a problem with this, and numerous lawsuits were filed, including this one and another in British Columbia.

  • Facebook Launches Action Spec Preview Tool

    If you use Facebook, you are probably aware of sponsored stories. They’re the little ads cloaked as Facebook status updates that appear on the right-hand side of the page. Even if sponsored stories are pretty unconventional as far as ads are concerned, they are still ads. They need to look good so people will want to click on them. That’s why Facebook now has a preview tool to test how they will look.

    Facebook announced the action spec preview tool as a way for developers to see how sponsored stories will show up in various parts of the Facebook environment. Action spec is the tool that allows developers to create the sponsored stories in the first place while targeting audiences on the Facebook platform.

    The action spec preview tool has a couple of options in regards to testing out sponsored stories and how they’re going to show up. The first is pretty simple because it just uses a drop down menu compiled with recent stories from your own news feed. The preview will then show you how the sponsored story will appear to users in either the news feed or on the right-hand side. There is also a robust Open Graph actions list so you can experiment with different actions to get the right combination set up.

    The other is to just use the action spec. This tool is far more powerful in that it takes any story on the Graph and displays the preview while providing “the approximate number of actions, actors and actor’s friends within the last week that mach the spec.” With this tool, you can immediately target the right kind of audience with your sponsored stories.

    Facebook suggests that developers should first experiment with their own news feed before getting into creating new kinds of sponsored stories and content. This should familiarize developers with the preview process while being able to see the kinds of sponsored stories the preview tool can create.

    They also recommend that developers experiment with action spec selectors. Selectors are the action type and properties of the object that are associated with the action spec. In this part of the tool, you can select a specific action spec and it will display real stories that match that spec.

    What I’m getting from all this is that developers should play around with the preview tool first before getting serious with it. There are a lot of options so it’s best to start using it with your own news feed to see how everything works before you mess up an actual sponsored stories.

    You can check out the new preview tool here. I’ve played around with it for a bit and it seems pretty good. I’m sure developers and businesses will get much more use out of it.