A few minutes ago I was calling my family, and had a 15-second video ad after they picked up. According to them, they saw the ad too.<p>Do you think this is a case of A/B Testing, or are the ads here to say?<p>Picture for reference: https://imgur.com/a/ddddPAm
Assuming this is true, who comes up with ideas like this?<p>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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.
This makes 0 sense to me. There's literally no lock in with FB messenger.<p>The second I get a video ad - that's it for FB video calls for me.
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?
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
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.
Wait, what? On a <i>private</i> 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.<p>Sounds like someone deserves a promotion. Just look at the right numbers for your arguments.
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.
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.<p>In the past, I've used Jitsi for when Facebook Messenger wasn't working for whatever reason.
Yes, I think that is actually great idea and should be rolled out to everybody!<p>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.