Group items tagged

One of the many ways that ads get in front of your eyeballs on Facebook and Instagram is that the social networking giant lets an advertiser upload a list of phone numbers or email addresses it has on file; it will then put an ad in front of accounts associated with that contact information. A clothing retailer can put an ad for a dress in the Instagram feeds of women who have purchased from them before, a politician can place Facebook ads in front of anyone on his mailing list, or a casino can offer deals to the email addresses of people suspected of having a gambling addiction. Facebook calls this a “custom audience.”

You might assume that you could go to your Facebook profile and look at your “contact and basic info” page to see what email addresses and phone numbers are associated with your account, and thus what advertisers can use to target you. But as is so often the case with this highly efficient data-miner posing as a way to keep in contact with your friends, it’s going about it in a less transparent and more invasive way.

Facebook is not content to use the contact information you willingly put into your Facebook profile for advertising. It is also using contact information you handed over for security purposes and contact information you didn’t hand over at all, but that was collected from other people’s contact books, a hidden layer of details Facebook has about you that I’ve come to call “shadow contact information.”

PR campaigns have always targeted those with this nom de guerre. But we didn’t always call them influencers. And calling them influencers is a huge mistake.

What many people call influencers on social media are simply their own media brand. A major newspaper is an organized team of influencers, whose opinions and content carries value in certain communities. The top Instagrammers, nationally distributed magazines and the dad down the block who posts his garage projects on Pinterest, are all just media properties as well

The biggest shortcoming in marketing measurement is that we judge the value of the influencer by their reach and engagement, versus audience, relevance and message

Where is the Listerine crisis management?It seems that the Listerine PR team have thrown Dixon under a bus. I can’t find any support for her situation.

Influencer advertising not influencer marketingInfluencer marketing is not influencer advertising. Influencer advertising is a subset of influencer marketing, but the subset does not speak for the whole category.The differences between Influencer marketing and influencer advertising have their roots in the differences between transactional marketing and relationship marketing.Influencer advertising is transactional and short-lived. Work is orientated around tent-pole campaign contracts between influencer and brand.

The important skill sets for influencer marketing are twofold: there are hard skills and soft skills.The hard skills are data-centric skills. That is looking under the bonnet and choosing influencers based on demographics, what they've produced before, their ratio between engagement of sponsored and organic content etc.The softer skills are crucial, too - building long-term and mutually beneficial, business-growth relationships.

Facebook Connections Targeting, NOW the ONLY way to forensically slice audience psychographics. The good news is FB users who engage can be easily studied using free FB tools in Audience Insights, the API and subtractive campaign reach. Get a FB user to become a connection, like your page, use your app, engage with an event and/or any advanced combinations thereof.  THEN and only then can they easily be studied.

In the old days we didn’t have Custom Audiences, let alone the ability to study them. Still, we made major psychographic marketing strides. Remember the magic: Drive traffic from social psychographic targeting to your website. Keep track of that targeting and creative through UTM tags. Set Google, FB and any first-party cookies on your site. Because traffic came from very specific targeting, we KNOW what the audience is. No analysis required.

Hundreds of thousands of Twitter accounts that amplified fake news and disinformation in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election are still active on the site, tweeting about other fake news and conspiracies more than a million times every day, according to a report released Thursday by the Knight Foundation.

Twitter hasn’t cracked down on many of its fake news amplifiers. Eighty percent of Twitter accounts that were spreading false information during the campaign were still active on the platform, researchers found.

The study found that most of the fake and conspiracy tweets on Twitter linked to only about 1o websites, including The Gateway Pundit and Truthfeed. That trend was largely unchanged from 2016. Additionally, about 60 percent of the accounts that shared and amplified fake news were estimated by researchers to have been automated accounts. Those accounts were densely connected, following each other at high rates and retweeting each other frequently, intensifying the impact and reach of each post.

It’s not all mega-influencers, either. Micro-influencers, who have targeted followings under 100,000, make up the backbone of the industry. Even people with just a few thousand followers can earn hundreds of dollars for a single sponsored post. It’s not hard to earn an income this way. Eight-year-olds can do it, provided some adult supervision.

As the new coronavirus sends the world hurtling toward a recession, though, more glamorous trappings of the influencer lifestyle have come to a halt. Paid trips have no place amid lockdowns, nor do street-style photoshoots to model #sponsored clothes. And it’s not clear that those opportunities will reappear in the future—at least, not for everyone. “The pandemic is having a major impact on the overall influence industry, and it’ll likely have lasting effects,” says Seits.

Elyce is still able to make some money. Like many influencers, she tags her clothes and beauty products on LikeToKnowIt, a platform that connects her followers to the online retailers where they can shop her lifestyle.

Big brands usually take their ad campaigns very seriously. But sometimes they don’t. In their latest attempt to win over the coveted Generation Z, companies from Uber to Netflix are laughing at themselves in sponsored memes, or funny vignettes, on Instagram. 

Meme accounts are a way for brands to reach a powerful audience that doesn’t consume media in the same way their parents and grandparents did. Gen Z, roughly between the ages of 7 and 22,  is the biggest consumer cohort globally, with spending power to the tune of more than $143 billion in the U.S. alone. And while Instagram remains the most popular social platform among teenagers, Dino said meme accounts are one of the fastest growing parts of Instagram.

Misinformation and right-wing conspiracy theories — which used to primarily reside in darker corners of the internet like 4chan and Reddit — have been spreading through Instagram since earlier this year. In April, BuzzFeed News reported that several lifestyle and parenting influencers had begun sprinkling in QAnon theories with their normal content; since then, the problem has only become bigger.

ghting against. Over the years, QAnon believers have claimed this ring has been involved in the Clinton presidential campaign (remember Pizzagate?), the Mueller investigation, and, more recently, the N

Influencer Rebecca Pfeiffer — who runs a blog about fashion and home decor called LuvBec and has 110,000 followers — has nine separate highlights on her page sharing a range of debunked QAnon conspiracy theories.

The class action suit, meanwhile, alleges that rather than accepting internal proposals to fix the accuracy problems of “potential reach”, Facebook instead “developed talking points to deflect from the truth”. The tech giant did announce some changes to the ad tool in March 2019 — when it said an advertiser’s campaign’s estimated potential reach “is now based on how many people have been shown an ad on a Facebook Product in the past 30 days who match your desired audience and placement criteria” (versus the estimates being previously based on “people who were active users in the past 30 days”). But the litigants argue that the changes to the tool which displays an estimate to advertisers as they are beginning to create a campaign — and therefore when they’re deciding/considering whether/how much money to spend with Facebook — do not fully fix the issue of the metric not corresponding to the potential audience of people who could see the ad on Facebook.