Tell HN: Facebook Messenger is testing in-call video ads
28 comments
Assuming this is true, who comes up with ideas like this?
If I was an advertiser do I really want to pay to have my ad (video nonetheless) shown to someone while they're actively trying to have a phone call? As a user, I'd just be pissed off at the advertiser plus im not looking at my screen when talking.
I guess technically this increases ad "views" metrics. But advertisers are just wasting their money. I hope the fact that Meta is testing changes like this causes advertisers to re-evaluate the risks of using FB advertising.
If I was an advertiser do I really want to pay to have my ad (video nonetheless) shown to someone while they're actively trying to have a phone call? As a user, I'd just be pissed off at the advertiser plus im not looking at my screen when talking.
I guess technically this increases ad "views" metrics. But advertisers are just wasting their money. I hope the fact that Meta is testing changes like this causes advertisers to re-evaluate the risks of using FB advertising.
A PM who's been given a metric goal and has their performance staked on hitting goal with nothing to counter-balance their push to hit that goal.
I recall a presentation someone gave awhile back which said something like, "Give a PM a goal that their job depends on and they will burn the company down to hit it."
I was a PM at a FAANG in a former life, so I can understand the pressure. Thankfully, I never did anything like this, partly because my team had a strong focus on customer experience but also because I cared less about the financial/promotion incentives.
I recall a presentation someone gave awhile back which said something like, "Give a PM a goal that their job depends on and they will burn the company down to hit it."
I was a PM at a FAANG in a former life, so I can understand the pressure. Thankfully, I never did anything like this, partly because my team had a strong focus on customer experience but also because I cared less about the financial/promotion incentives.
Sounds about right. From what I've heard, Meta is laser-focused on metrics compared to other tech companies and FAANGs, and entire promotion cycles are based around how much you "moved the needle" so to speak along some metrics. This "increase revenue through in-call ads" seems like low-hanging fruit for any PM or engineer who wanted to get promoted quickly.
I am certain the advertisers love this. All ads are intrusive, and generally the more intrusive the more expensive.
Yes but intruding into private audio calls is something users would be heavily suspicious of. It's not hard to imagine a non technical users thinking "OMG they're showing me ads based on my calls". Lots of people already think this.
Also its one thing to show an expensive ad on a screen that the user is actively looking at (that might actually be effective), and another to show an expensive ad on a screen that 95% of users are not looking at.
Also its one thing to show an expensive ad on a screen that the user is actively looking at (that might actually be effective), and another to show an expensive ad on a screen that 95% of users are not looking at.
If true this will end up selecting for less technical people, which will mean it'll turn into an ad feed full of quack garbage that is aggressively marketed to less technical people.
But the ads they show will be based on your calls right? Because, how else...
The call to action piece is missing because even if you see something you want to click-on you will avoid it because you have a live call
This looks like the layout for the "Watch Together" feature: https://messengernews.fb.com/2020/09/14/feel-together-messen...
There's a bottom section that slides up and if a user clicks on one of the videos it will play for all participants. If anyone sees this and didn't intentionally click on one of those videos please file a bug!
There's a bottom section that slides up and if a user clicks on one of the videos it will play for all participants. If anyone sees this and didn't intentionally click on one of those videos please file a bug!
I wonder what would happen if there would be more "Karens", that would complain about this?
Looking at the screenshot, let's say it's a cat food ad... if that "Karen" would call the cat food company and complain that their ad wasted her time with an old relative, or whatever, and in turn waste that companies time... and multiply that with 10.000 karens,... but it needs people to actually be proactive about stuff like that.
Looking at the screenshot, let's say it's a cat food ad... if that "Karen" would call the cat food company and complain that their ad wasted her time with an old relative, or whatever, and in turn waste that companies time... and multiply that with 10.000 karens,... but it needs people to actually be proactive about stuff like that.
I don’t understand why you would choose to say “karens” instead of “people”.
Because lumping other people together under derogatory labels so that we can all more easily hate others is the "normal" way many humans interact with one another these days… :(
Because "Karens" are usually the ones who complain to managers about stuff like this. "People" just say "meh" or complain to a friend or two, and a "Karen" will go through a whole line of managers and complain to all of them.
Ads are often (if not always) shown to users who are actively trying to do something else. Like watching a video or reading an article. Why should this be different?
> video or reading an article
Setting aside that people load their browsers up with ad blockers to avoid those too, they're also async experiences that have no real-time social dynamics involved with them. Video calls are interpersonal and interruptions are highly problematic.
Setting aside that people load their browsers up with ad blockers to avoid those too, they're also async experiences that have no real-time social dynamics involved with them. Video calls are interpersonal and interruptions are highly problematic.
Yes, but in the cases you mentioned the user is interacting with the same pane of glass. In this case, the user's interaction is voice, not the screen.
Also not to mention that calls are very private. And the impression it gives to consumers that their call is being used for ads or even tracking.
Also not to mention that calls are very private. And the impression it gives to consumers that their call is being used for ads or even tracking.
Look I get that people love to shit on Signal because its not perfect, but this is the main reason I use it to call and message my family. It's a viable alternative to insane shit like Messenger and you should consider having your family members install it. It's incredibly easy to use.
Cue someone below me talking about how they set up a Matrix or XMPP server for grandma and its 'so easy' once you get the presence handshake working and if you're using a specific set of clients that support the right features.
Cue someone below me talking about how they set up a Matrix or XMPP server for grandma and its 'so easy' once you get the presence handshake working and if you're using a specific set of clients that support the right features.
Is there a reason Signal couldn't put ads in their video call product?
This is an interesting question. Doesn't Signal rather famously not track anything about who you're talking to? Reputational damage to Signal's brand aside, I expect it'd be hard to sell advertisers on a black hole.
If they did, you wouldn't be able to use a fork or another client because it isn't federated unfortunately.
that doesn't mean you can't fork the client. See telegram for an example of third party apps without federation
Because you can just take it out: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android
I believe it is non-profit currently, so making money is not their top priority.
Non-profits still have to stay in business. My health insurer is "non-profit".
So why did they think they had to do the crypto token thing?
Doesn't Signal have $50 million in debt? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)#Developers_a...
This makes 0 sense to me. There's literally no lock in with FB messenger.
The second I get a video ad - that's it for FB video calls for me.
The second I get a video ad - that's it for FB video calls for me.
What do you mean? It's a messaging platform with built-in integration to the largest social network in the world. I couldn't possibly imagine a more textbook example of lock-in.
because it happens on a mobile phone, which already has a built-in way to do it.
"Hey mum, I decided to call you because that video ad bullshit is bullshit".
"Hey mum, I decided to call you because that video ad bullshit is bullshit".
But that doesn't include video part of a videocall and in many cases (internationall calls) cost quite a lot still.
The main push from sms/mms and calling to messaging services was the free price and additional features.
The main push from sms/mms and calling to messaging services was the free price and additional features.
Facetime (and/or Duo) will work exactly the same. Both are free.
Yes, but you need an apple device for facetime, and how many people actually have Duo installed?
If your grandma has facebook and all her friends have facebook and all your friends have facebook... how many of them can you move over to Duo (r signal, telegram, matrix,...)?
If your grandma has facebook and all her friends have facebook and all your friends have facebook... how many of them can you move over to Duo (r signal, telegram, matrix,...)?
I used Duo as an example.
I fail to see a real difference between a FB account and an iphone. Both serve as a way to connect to a network. Not everyone I know has a FB account, but most of those without a FB account have a cellphone. And frankly, around here (I live near Montreal), the majority have an iphone (and they already have Facetime).
I go where (my) people are and they are increasingly not on FB (and IG as well for that matter). Telegram, matrix and signal is not even mentionned.
I kind of get your point, but it can be applied to every network ever (needing a way to be part of the network).
I go where (my) people are and they are increasingly not on FB (and IG as well for that matter). Telegram, matrix and signal is not even mentionned.
I kind of get your point, but it can be applied to every network ever (needing a way to be part of the network).
Outside of northern america, androids vastly outnumber iphones, especially with nonrich and non-tech-savy (and very-tech-savy) people.
I live in the balkans... if people call someone, they call someone using a phone. If they use any of the internet-call services (from facebook video, to skype, viber calls, whatsapp, duo, etc...), they do it because they either want video with their calls or because the normal calls are expensive (for example, a minute of calling from slovenia (EU) to serbia (non-EU) costs 0.59eur, same for eg. switzerland... calling from serbia/switzerland back home (while roaming) is even worse - 2.65eur/minute).
So, to call people via an app, those people need an app installed (and an account on that app). Since most people here have androids, they don't have duo preinstalled, but most of them use either Viber, facebook (which now serves ads) or whatsapp (which is technically facebook, so ads could come there too).
Yes, i have no problems with setting up a sip server, sharing the credentials over irc and then using wireguard on one side and ipsec on the other to protect the sip session. My mom only knows how to use whatsapp, because that's the only thing she ever needed, because everyone she calls has whatsapp installed. Explaining how to install duo, and then calling my aunts and uncles and telling them why they need duo is a pain in the ass, especially if they're already happy with whatsapp. I have no idea how many old people you know and have dealt with regarding technical stuff, but if you don't believe me, you can try migrating my family to signal... and good luck with that :D
I live in the balkans... if people call someone, they call someone using a phone. If they use any of the internet-call services (from facebook video, to skype, viber calls, whatsapp, duo, etc...), they do it because they either want video with their calls or because the normal calls are expensive (for example, a minute of calling from slovenia (EU) to serbia (non-EU) costs 0.59eur, same for eg. switzerland... calling from serbia/switzerland back home (while roaming) is even worse - 2.65eur/minute).
So, to call people via an app, those people need an app installed (and an account on that app). Since most people here have androids, they don't have duo preinstalled, but most of them use either Viber, facebook (which now serves ads) or whatsapp (which is technically facebook, so ads could come there too).
Yes, i have no problems with setting up a sip server, sharing the credentials over irc and then using wireguard on one side and ipsec on the other to protect the sip session. My mom only knows how to use whatsapp, because that's the only thing she ever needed, because everyone she calls has whatsapp installed. Explaining how to install duo, and then calling my aunts and uncles and telling them why they need duo is a pain in the ass, especially if they're already happy with whatsapp. I have no idea how many old people you know and have dealt with regarding technical stuff, but if you don't believe me, you can try migrating my family to signal... and good luck with that :D
Jitsi is a good option IME. No signup required, just click a link.
https://meet.jit.si/
https://meet.jit.si/
This is interesting. It sounds like Facebook is potentially looking under the couches, so-to-speak, for spare change by doing this. I also wonder if other comms apps are going to be doing this too?
Zoom has the audacity to show me (a paying Zoom subscriber) ads in the UI and at the end of calls. It's infuriating, even more so since it's ads for nothing I'd ever consider using.
In UI: https://cs.joshstrange.com/zTpdlC
End of call, always on top, popup: https://cs.joshstrange.com/BizVwE
EDIT: I get that it's less offensive since it's a "first-party ad"/"upsell" and I could forgive the banner in the app (even though dismissing it only makes it go away for like 24 hours, if that) but the popups post-meeting drive me bonkers. To the point I've considered seeing if I can write some code to watch for that window and kill it right away.
In UI: https://cs.joshstrange.com/zTpdlC
End of call, always on top, popup: https://cs.joshstrange.com/BizVwE
EDIT: I get that it's less offensive since it's a "first-party ad"/"upsell" and I could forgive the banner in the app (even though dismissing it only makes it go away for like 24 hours, if that) but the popups post-meeting drive me bonkers. To the point I've considered seeing if I can write some code to watch for that window and kill it right away.
First-party upsells aren't at all uncommon in paid products. That's very different than what Facebook is doing.
This is annoying but advertisements tailored to the product you’re using aren’t nearly as offensive to just a random ad for some cheap wish.com product, interrupting your video call.
Free customer? I get it.
Paying customer? That's big no no
Paying customer? That's big no no
Probably 80% of the SaaS apps I've run into have "want this feature? upgrade your plan!" upsells scattered around. It's clearly not a big no no.
I don't see those things any more even when they do pop up. It's amazing how quickly you get trained to simply ignore advertising.
If it's true, it's a hilariously bad decision
Coming to Whatsapp soon
We will never merge data from WA and FB!
And coming to Skype or Zoom or WebEx or some other competitor: a notification that "Unlike some of our competitors, we promise never to intrude into your calls"
It's not.
that's amazing... there are people in a meeting room at facebook believing this will increase revenue and the product owner of fb messenger said yes. lol
Because consumers have a stellar track record of rejecting user-hostile decisions?
May as well try it. People are swallowing everything else.
May as well try it. People are swallowing everything else.
If the meeting was virtual they could "enjoy" being interrupted by their own adds. Dogfooding!
I don't think that said PO said yes naturally, I think he said yes forcefully.
Just tells you a lot a lot what to expect in Metaverse and the experience there.
We use fb for the family calls. This will add years to the project of being able to get grandma on a call without difficulty and I'm not sure she has that kind of time. I'm only half joking.
Might I suggest Jitsi? We've used it with success with our older relatives.
https://meet.jit.si/
https://meet.jit.si/
Bonus points if the ad preceding your next conversation is uncannily relevant to what you were talking about last time.
Some chipper, go-getter PM forgot that not every call is a light, happy call.
Wait, what? On a private person to person call? Curious if this will be a thing on cell phone calls next. This seems like a great way to kill off a platform.
Its a win-win. Less bandwith costs -> cost reduction.
Higher revenue. More, more money.
Sounds like someone deserves a promotion. Just look at the right numbers for your arguments.
Sounds like someone deserves a promotion. Just look at the right numbers for your arguments.
...what?
Interesting find.
One might argue that ad-tech went too far on this one if they are tracking conversations to place the "right" ads.
Some random thoughts:
Would the ad be different for caller / recipient?
Why would an advertiser place their ad there while there are "safer" places on Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Disney, etc?
Are ad-tech business models at the end of the innovation cycle?
What's coming next?
I am curious tho. How do people expect that these companies pay for the underlying infrastructure? If you dont want to pay a monthly fee, you dont want them to monetise with ads, how do you imagine they cover running costs? I dont like facebook or intrusive ads, but i wouldnt mind paying for a service that lets me connect with friends, make calls, store photos, and join groups, but doesnt sell me ads.
That’s a f no from me dawg. They can add this to every video service out there and I’ll happily set up a SIP PBX. Not happening.
Seems like a terrible idea. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of alternative platforms at hand that you can use for videochats, and I can't think of any that show intrusive video ads like this.
In the past, I've used Jitsi for when Facebook Messenger wasn't working for whatever reason.
In the past, I've used Jitsi for when Facebook Messenger wasn't working for whatever reason.
[deleted]
This is reminding me of the demise of AOL. Suddenly ads were everywhere. Then AOL was nowhere.
Yes, I think that is actually great idea and should be rolled out to everybody!
I hate using messenger but some people I communicate with still prefer it. If this is rolled out, they will surely move to other platforms.
I hate using messenger but some people I communicate with still prefer it. If this is rolled out, they will surely move to other platforms.
Time to move the family chat to Telegram.
It is slowly adding ads as well. Currently in the channels only, but just give them some time.
I need to say, that I would probably lost my marbles if video call application would do anything like that.
I bet this is some MBA's idea
I suspect this will be the final straw for many users, myself included.
Is it going to display ads based on the conversation of the call?
FB getting desperate....
lol
Do you think this is a case of A/B Testing, or are the ads here to say?
Picture for reference: https://imgur.com/a/ddddPAm