I have already read several articles about GM’s decision to halt Facebook Advertising. While most articles point out that GM doesn’t understand Social Marketing, and Ford has already pounced on the topic by pointing out how ineffective GM is as social marketing, and how great they are (which very well may be true), but my question is simple. Really?
I have been working with Facebook and other social technologies for several years now, and I too find Facebook ads relatively ineffective. As a strategist, I find them unreliable in getting people to my pages or events, even when paired with great content. However, maybe more telling is that as a consumer, I have NEVER clicked on an ad. No matter the company, the content, the “call to action” or the picture. I have never clicked on an ad, with the exception of one time, and that was an ad I created and wanted to test.
Now, do I think it makes sense that GM made this big to do about not paying for ads, no. I can’t understand why they would do that. Why not quietly reduce the ad budget, and slowly phase out paid ads, while adding additional and stronger content? After a quick visit the GM Facebook page, I was even more confused by their post.
Don’t tell me; SHOW me. I want to see this new content and how you’ll be providing more of it. I truly want new content, strong content that will drive my opinions and experience. I do agree with Ford’s comment in the Huffington Post article, GM doesn’t seem to get Facebook marketing, but I don’t think companies should be focused on marketing. Instead, they should be focused on content creation and telling their story and connecting their audience with them and each other.
Maybe this wouldn’t even be a story if Facebook wasn’t so close to going public, yet then again, maybe it still have been a story. Either way, I think GM has a ways to go in learning how to use Facebook and other social technologies to better tell their story, but that doesn’t mean they have to pay for an ad.