Facebook: more relevant than TV, still a long way to go
I like Harley-Davidson motorbikes. I do not own one but like to look at them. With Facebook now integrating people and businesses into one content stream, I do hear a lot from Harley – being a “fan” of their page.
Specifically, I got plenty of post taken at SXSW where HD was present.

Harley-Davidson staff at SXSW
One could make the argument that since I pre-qualified as a person interested in Harley-Davidson bikes, their posts – not primarily commercial in nature – will be relevant to me. And to the extent that I care about this particular brand a lot more than, say, Ariel or Tide, they are. Harley can communicate with me in a way that is certainly more personalized than a random TV ad.
Why, then, do I have to fight the impulse to click the “X” mark above a post they made to get rid of it, anyway? And by doing so, banishing them from my newsfeed forthwith?
Their posts are not quite-relevant to me because I am not buying a bike NOW. They are not actionable. That is true for many updates coming from the people I know, but these are my friends; I let them in. Harley-Davidson is not my friend.
Advertising is most relevant when it’s part of the conversation going on in my head right now. And so for these messages to speak to me, they would have to come to me based on my action, an impulse that I would send, something along the lines, “it’s warm outside, sun is shining, pity I don’t have a bike”. THEN a post by Harley-Davidson would make a very good sense indeed.
Again: I would drive the conversation. I would decide what is relevant, where and when.
The direction Facebook has taken is certainly a good one, compared to the old ways of advertising. Hopefully the next step will involve taking the user’s initiative and intent into account, and responding in a way that is focused on what the person is thinking or doing at the time.
comments
Additional comments powered by BackType

