Facebook.com is now the internet

No, this actually means Facebook is now AOL. They used to show "AOL Keywords" in the same places he mentions Facebook page URLs appearing.

&#62; <i>facebook.com/doritos</i><p>facebook.com appears to be a distraction black hole, sucking all other useless advertising sites and hypercasual games into it.<p>This is largely a good thing, as you'll now only have to remember one domain name not to visit.

Linkbait blogpost to stir the pot. The blogger writes about his experience watching the Doritos Super Bowl ad having a facebook link at the end and how it was an epiphany or something about Facebook being "the Internet." With only 3 short paragraphs and an embedded video with the ad in question.<p>Don't waste your time.

Fads among Madison avenue creative agencies do not the Internet make. (Anybody remember the Starburst wikiTweetBook promotion?)

Redirect people to your Facebook page, and since even dogs have Facebook profiles, the user will probably click the 'like' button, and may also share the page or invite a few friends.<p>Companies now are looking for more fans because it means for them more coverage. The news they publish on their page will show up on the user page. But what will happen if all of the companies that exist in earth and other parts of the universe advertise heavily on Facebook?<p>The typical user will have then a subscription to more than 1 thousand page and he'll probably end up watching what his friends are sharing. This is exactly what happened to Twitter, when web masters started to accumulate followers, but in the end it didn't work out. You can have 20K followers and barely 10 users read your tweet.<p>And this is not only linked to Facebook, imagine you are watching a movie and get a break with 320 ads, will you remember any of them? What the conversion ratio will be?

What utility do these Facebook pages of companies offer, other than allowing me to become a fan?<p>I am not even sure if I want to have news feeds of my favorite products. Quite the other way round: I like products that have a high quality and last for a very long time. This implies that once I buy it, I don't need a news stream about it for a very long time anymore, either. The product should stay out of my way and do what it is designed to do.<p>Also, it would embarrass me to advertise stuff to my friends.

<i>As Web Professionals, we need to pay attention to this fundamental shift and act accordingly.</i><p>How, by calling themselves social media experts?<p>....Oh.

Hooray! If all the advertising / marketing types can move to Facebook I can successfully ignore them just like I used to successfully ignore AOL keywords.

I think this is far more true if your business is B2C (Business to Consumer) than if it's B2B (Business to Business). It might now be the internet for individuals, but I don't think it's there yet for companies.<p>I use Facebook (when I do) in a very personal space. Brands whose pages I have liked are all personal - Get Into London Theatre, my work, my favourite film. I don't connect with any of my clients, or my corporate suppliers, on there. And I've had limited success promoting my business through FB, as opposed to LinkedIn (which I use in a very business space).<p>(Obviously, what we've done with FB is not very good. That's not the logic behind my argument here, just another data point.)<p>I do see an opportunity for businesses in the B2B space to use it better. It might now be the internet for individuals, not companies, but that doesn't mean my business shouldn't have a presence.

Sooner or later there will be a HBS case showing social marketing returns are falling and the hype will be over.<p>Currently Facebook might be AOL like, but it won't stay like that forever. A lot can change in a decade on the internet.

New media outlets are always abused blatantly before they are used properly. As a site about a phone, the Xperia Play "site" (it's only a facebook fan page) gets an F. No photos, no technical specs... if you are looking for information about the phone, about the only thing it does is get in your way. You have to like the page just to see it's only video. It's as if Best Buy made me call a friend just to look around the store. To hang around long term, these brand pages will have to start offering genuine utility of some kind--and that's the same challenge for every site or trend on the internet.

It is questionable strategy to give control of your brand over to another party.<p>I also wonder how companies are truly monetizing their FB traffic.

"Love it or hate it, I guess I was right when I said you need to jump back into Facebook. As Web Professionals, we need to pay attention to this fundamental shift and act accordingly."<p>Just because someone else is doing something does not mean that I need to do the same thing.<p>If you see an advantage in using Facebook then do it. But think for yourself and don't just follow the other Lemmings.

The author does seem to miss the point that this is really only about brand engagement. I do not know anyone who would even consider /buying/ doritos from facebook (or online at all I suppose), but may have an interest in letting others know how much they like it. This is what a majority of product based companies are looking for in their website, so a low cost website with incredible traffic potential is an easy choice over creating a completely unique site.<p>Unless facebook releases a vending front, like amazon marketplace, that would allow small companies to easily sell goods through facebook itself.

It's not. Some people are holdouts. Foregoing a website in favour of a Facebook page means excluding these people. I don't see that replacing yourbrand.com with a redirect to facebook.com/yourbrand is a good idea.

<i>"Love it or hate it, I guess I was right when I said you need to jump back into Facebook."</i> Well I guess he was wrong twice. <i>"so they re-direct the .com to Facebook. Scary."</i> How is this scary? They will never do this. Branding is very important for large companies. You cannot afford letting people think about Facebook when instead they should think about Doritos. They just use Facebook so people can easily find there corporate website. But as <i>csomar</i> points out: it will only last a minute.<p>QR-codes are the new hyperlinks.

AOL: Keyword

Wasn't this same claim made by Wired, albeit with different reasons for their conclusion? I remember John Gruber and several others denounced the story at the time, but I can only find the DF link<p><a href="http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/08/17/wired-translation" rel="nofollow">http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/08/17/wired-translatio...</a>

I can remember a few years ago companies were just saying "Google &#60;our brand&#62;" instead of giving out the URL. I think it's all just a way to make it easier for people to find their sites. People are very used to using Google and Facebook so why not give out information in terms of those services?

This is some truth to this. FB is a walled, semi-curated, subset of the internet. It has inertia and, for all those who don't want the general hassles associated with the internet at large, may be a perfect 5-minute solution.<p>The local red-neck bar has a FB page. Think about that.

Marketing is about reaching the most people, now ask yourself which way reaches more people, Facebook which has millions of users already or some web site your company threw together?<p>If its any mystery to you then you probably fail to understand the point of advertising.

i am not using fb. may i not pay for the internet access?

This is about subscriptions vs. a one time visit.<p>I'll probably only visit their website once, but if I 'like' them on facebook, they can push stuff at me, any time they want, promotions, new products etc.

This has happened before, in 2000 every one was directing you to their myspace page. In the mid 90's it was a AOL keyword, late 90's is was their website. Next will be twitter.

Justin.tv is now thepiratebay of TV networks?

During the dotcom book, "number of eyeballs" was the metric. Now it "number of Fans" and "number of followers". History repeats...again