Posted July 3, 2012 3:26 pm by with 0 comments

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on FacebookBuffer this page

Brad Smallwood, head of measurement and insight at Facebook told a reporter for the Wall Street Journal that “it takes about a year to get the results of one campaign.”

That line appears as the final statement in a piece about how Facebook is trying to woo back GM who earlier this year pulled 10 million dollars worth of ads off the social network.

Let’s revisit that line again; “it takes about a year to get the results of one campaign.”  A year? As in 365 days worth of paying for ads to run on a very popular website but I shouldn’t expect to see any results until I’ve burned through the whole 10 million dollar budget?

Are they crazy? Maybe, because in the same article Mr. Smallwood also says, “It is a myth that Facebook advertising doesn’t work.”

Here’s what I say, if a company like GM, a company with all the clout, money, and resources at its disposal, things that Facebook ads don’t work, I’m inclined to agree. Now you could say it’s cars and that’s the problem, people don’t want to buy cars on a social network, but that’s blowing smoke. If Facebook was as good a platform as they claim it is, they could sell chocolate herring to the masses.

Really, look at all the crazy things we’ve bought because we got caught up in the marketing hype. Pet Rocks and $10,000 Cabbage Patch Dolls, and ringtones  (2.1 billion in sales). And can we talk about the money people spend on virtual items for Facebook games (1.65 billion)?

Saying that it takes a year to see the results of a Facebook ad campaign is ludicrous when people are dropping bucks on virtual cows and plants every day.

Now check out this new move. According to the New York Post, Facebook is looking to get into the video business with help from the TV networks. They’re working on a deal where they push “likes” on TV-related videos and in return get a portion of the ad revenue from that video.

“If you have 2.6 million likes and Facebook drives that to 4.6 million, then they would share a piece of the additional likes,” one TV source told The Post.

“If you do an $11 million deal with an advertiser some of it would go to Facebook,” the source noted.

Does this sound even more crazy?

Here’s the response from one TV exec:

“It’s hard to pin down the measure of a like,” said one senior TV executive, who added that any deal would likely have a cap to limit a company’s exposure to paying for an astronomical increase in likes.

Smart man (or woman.) The whole concept sounds like those deals you see where they guarantee you “likes” on your page. They aren’t targeted or useful, but they’re “likes” so who cares, right?

With all the resources Facebook has at its disposal, you’d think they could create a detailed ad delivery and measurement system that would remove the speculation. Then again, maybe the reason they can’t do it is because Facebook really is a bad buy.

What do you think? Is it reasonable to wait a year to see results on an ad campaign?