The headline results look good. ComScore monitored the online activity, and
credit/debit/loyalty card purchases, of several thousand volunteers. Two
study groups, consisting of those who were exposed to Facebook messages from
Starbucks and Target, were compared with unexposed control groups. Over a
month, the Starbucks study group was 38 per cent more likely to make a
purchase than the control group. The difference was 21 per cent at Target.
So far so good, but check the fine print. The results look less striking when
the absolute frequency of purchases is considered: 2.1 per cent of subjects
bought something at Starbucks, for example, versus 1.5 per cent of controls
(part of the problem was that cash transactions were not counted). Assuming
a big enough base, a small difference could be significant, of course. But
more important, the Starbucks and Target subjects were not exposed to paid
ads but to messages originating in the companies’ Facebook pages and spread
through the pages of brand “fans” and their “friends”.
This is not how Facebook makes money – not directly. A third study, of those
exposed to paid Facebook ads from a large retailer, showed only a 16 per
cent rise in in-store purchases – 1.5 per cent of those exposed made
in-store purchases, versus 1.3 per cent of controls.
Naturally, no study can truly substitute for what investors most want to see:
accelerating growth in advertising revenue, on a per user basis. That has
been flat for two quarters worldwide and decelerating in the US. This
popularity contest can only be won with profits.
Dit artikel is oorspronkelijk verschenen op z24.nl