Or the DMV. "The time people spend at our office is a good measure of whether we're delivering value to them."

Or a hospital.

or a cemetery

Way to get morbid HN... but yeah. Anything that distracts from original purpose is a tar pit for time. I certainly hope I don't go into a cemetery willing and end up staying...

love the way this escalated :)

Exactly. Usage patterns and "deriving value" seem like very different beasts.

Yes; in fact, this statement would have made a lot more sense:

> "The time people spend using our products is a good measure of whether they're delivering value to us."

Now that's a little ominous, but yeah absolutely. It also fits with the "consumer as product" viewpoint.

Isn't the only logical endpoint for Facebook to become a VR world where we all spend 100% of our time? That's what a forever-continuing revenue increase would create, right? And that's exactly how the incentive structures exist right now.

I don't really like that society places such high emphasis on structures that create dystopias.

Interestingly, I think there may be a point beyond which Facebook begins to lose revenue as users spend more time on their site.

Think about it - their revenue comes from turn-over. They don't make money because you spend time on facebook - they make money because you spend time/money elsewhere, and they know enough about you to encourage you to spend more money on other people's products or otherwise sell their knowledge of you to people who can make those sales.

At some point wherein Facebook occupies an exceptional amount of a user's time - when it becomes the only product a user wants - Facebook won't be able to sell you anything. At this point, the company would probably need to find other ways to profit besides advertising. But I don't think we'll ever get anywhere near the point at which an increase in FB use time corresponds to a decrease in advertiser value anyway.

you are neglecting in-app purchases

At some point, time spent on Facebook will start competing against time spent playing candy crush saga.

On the plus side, beyond a certain point Facebook is going to have to start investing heavily in life-extension technology for their users, so as to continue increasing the time that users can use Facebook.

>VR world where we all spend 100% of our time

<sarcasm> Farmville !! I can't wait !! </sarcasm>

<!-- Sarcasm not towards you, towards my thought of VR farmville -->

You mignt as well just ask...Why not VR Zoidberg?

At a "big data" talk Yahoo gave one of the keynotes where they asked which one of the two email samples had the "most engagement" Surprise surprise it was the one with the confusing text on it -- people were clicking on it to see what the heck it meant.

But to the Yahoo guys that meant that email was better as it got more clicks. And I suppose it is better if that's how your bonus is constructed.

No really. Send slightly jacked-up canned emails. Gravitas!

Well, value in sating a compulsive or addictive behavior, but not all values are equal.

Exactly, I agree. That's why I didn't disagree with the statement, just qualified it with more examples to illustrate your point.

That so many exceptions and alternative interpretations are possible makes "value" a meaningless term. Perhaps some day reporters won't go MEGO[1] when hearing it.

1. https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/mego/

Value is just like a variable, it is a place holder for what matters. And the value of the value can vary depending on the person or the situation. It could be a positive or a negative value, a value of high importance or minimal importance. Assigning something a value just basically means you're not entirely disinterested in it.

Thanks. Well said.

I will never understand why advertising businesses (and that's what Facebook is) fail to see their fundamental value proposition: ROI on ad spend.

Jessie Baker's comment fails in two respects: (1) eyeballs and engagement time is not a "good measure" without correlating to ROI for advertisers, and (2) FB's value proposition is not aimed at users, but rather at advertisers.

ROI-based measurement is the only sane way to measure the effectiveness of a marketing channel.

But if ad companies are measured based on ROI, then they can be easily compared against other channels. That's the last thing any ad company wants.

So to make a great deal of money as a marketing channel you need to invent a new metric, one that your company is very good at delivering on. Then you convince the market that metric is one they should care about.

It's no different from how SaaS companies regularly invent new "spaces" that enterprises need solutions for (marketing automation, lead scoring, video marketing etc) or even how real estate agents in major metro areas regularly rename neighborhoods and redraw area boundaries. If you can make the market, define a new reality that your customers have to step into, you increase the odds that your customers will measure success in a way that favors your strengths.

You're 100% right. I will never understand why ad spend is as high as it is when the customer never proves ROI. It made sense when ads were cultural background noise, in magazines and other media that had no way of providing feedback on conversions, etc. But we've crossed the rubicon, and yet ad channels still suck at ROI for the perverse reasons that you correctly mention.

At least some channels, like App Stores for example, offer something like end-to-end metrics for placements.

I think Philip Morris would not be wrong here. The problem here is the difference in values that individuals have. A lot of us might think of wasting time of Facebook or Casino is a bad idea but for many people it would not be the case. Facebook is essentially competing with Snapchat, Youtube, TV for time and if Facebook wins it means they are offering more value than others. People aren't going to read more books or get new skills if Facebook deliberately rations their user's time.

Yes, there are lots of satisfying addictions competing for our time. That doesn't absolve any of them for the harm they cause.

Anyone selling ads is trying to addict you to get you to see more ads. It's immoral.

I don't find it immoral.

Some people do enjoy smoking and/or gambling. Not everyone is a victim being exploited

And some people are legitimately addicted and unable to stop despite their sincere desire. In many cases, companies engineer products and services to be as addictive as possible. The techniques used by casinos, for instance, are well known.

This is not an argument for regulation, prohibition or anything like that. Merely a rebuttal to the falsehood that nobody is being "exploited" by such companies and that "value" is being created. In many cases value is being destroyed.

At the end of the day society has to decide, are we going to let people make there own decisions or are we going to decide for them? It might very from topic to topic (ex: tobacco vs. unhealthy foods), but it's one definitive answer per topic.

Right, but as I stated above that debate is out of scope. I'm just disputing the notion that fostering addiction amounts to "creating value."

Addiction can be to anything. Its all dopaminergic pathways. Maybe half the idiots arent smoking anymore, instead they are taking selfies. What you are really asking is whether many companies have built themselves into perverse incentive structures with use of dark patterns on their consumers. Absolutely.

I imagine those people with dependency issues that are using social networks to such an extent that it impacts their lives have deeper problems rather than just Facebook. Facebook probably benefits from heavy users, but every industry does (80/20 rule). I could be wrong, but I just don't believe that it can create those users through engineering their products. Although I do admit the service likely attracts those with addictive personalities. Honestly, there are a lot worse things one can be hooked to.

Some people do enjoy heroin and/or being a slave. Not everyone is a victim being exploited.

In other words, I really don't know what you're trying to add to the conversation.

Just because you might find the experience mundane or meaningless and you may not be able to fathom why anyone would willfully use such a product doesn't mean that the users are being exploited. It's very condescending and offensive when you compare casual users of a social network that you may not like to real exploitation through chemical dependence or abuse.

This talk "Is Anything Worth Maximizing?" is worth a watch: http://nxhx.org/maximizing/

That link doesn't work. Can you verify?

Edit: Its working now.

Delivering value could just mean giving them dopamine in the short term. That's value.

"Value" is pretty much the most banal dimension possible. Total red flag euphemism.

You have an excellent nose for appropriate metaphors. That's awesome!

I would be happier if I spent less time on facebook. It is a drug for me.