Shares and dislikes - Facebook has been in the news a lot this week. 1,004 Danish teenagers face charges for sharing
underage revenge porn on the platform, an Indonesian high school student was jailed over an
insulting post directed at president Joko Widodo and the company has been coerced into investigating
Russian meddling during the 2016 Brexit vote. But behind the scenes a far bigger shift is underway, one that will leave an indelible mark on global media.
The News-less Feed - If you count yourself amongst Facebook's two billion users, your daily scroll is about to change. CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced this week that user-created 'original' content from family and friends will be prioritised within the News Feed - at the expense of news articles and other so-called 'public content'. It was a firm statement of intent following months of rudderless drift during which Facebook had studiously avoided its problems with news.
But how did things get to this point, and why did Facebook step into the news game in the first place? There would undoubtedly have been many reasons: the mobile revolution, panicked publishers, fair-weather advertisers and a turf war with Twitter. But behind it all was the likely pressure on what was then a newly listed public company to increase the number of times a user visited Facebook, and the amount of money each visit generated. The simplest way to do this was to increase the amount of content displayed to the user, by supplementing the existing news feed of dinners, engagements and baby photos with external 'public content' created by publishers and brands. And so executives at Menlo Park watched as the world's largest news organisations followed their readers onto the platform and the notion of going viral entered the lexicon and also quickly became a fundamental goal for publishers. BuzzFeed and others soon built revolutionary new businesses to manufacture viral, clickable content on Facebook.
Insecurity preferences - While users were distracted by clickbait the personal information they were revealing to Facebook was being used by advertisers in novel (and it tuns out, nefarious) ways. During the 2016 US presidential election Russia used Facebook's detailed data to attempt to sway the loyalties of individuals through personalised propaganda. Unsurprisingly then, company executives have spent much of the past year being dragged before committees on Capitol Hill and upbraided.
Regulators, intelligence organisations and the general public smouldered. Browbeaten, Facebook went into damage control. Hundreds of content editors were hired, fake news pages were banned, measures for verification and validation were added, and deeper partnerships with publishers mooted. But with each passing month and each failed countermeasure a realisation bloomed:
Facebook shouldn't be the world's gatekeeper for news (and couldn't feasibly even if it wanted to). So Facebook opted out of the news.
There has been a significant amount of hand-wringing in the press over this decision. A step away from news seems a prudent business decision for Facebook given the lurking threat of regulatory action. Although the market didn't agree, and it
shaved some $3.3b off Zuckerberg's personal wealth. Still, it's not hard to imagine him sleeping better knowing that Facebook may be returning to something similar to his initial vision.
Unfortunately, what's good for Facebook may not be so for publishers who have become increasingly dependent on it for reach. Some of the newer 'digital-native' media companies derive up to 90% of their reads and views from Facebook - and even the legacy newspaper brands get up to 40% of their online reads through social media.
Luckily some of these organisations have had the foresight to diversify their revenue model (principally by selling online subscriptions) and will survive. Many more, starved of reads and advertising dollars on Facebook, will put up paywalls in coming months. Others will collapse. Those who are heavily reliant on clicks will no doubt produce more of the "snackable" video content that Facebook's rumoured video tab will feature. Still, industry insiders hold grave fears for the future of companies like Vox and BuzzFeed .
Popping the pop-ups - The trouble doesn't stop there for publishers and advertisers. In just a few short weeks Google is going to change the internet with a built-in ad-blocker on its Chrome browser. It's doing this ostensibly to streamline the user experience and combat predatory advertisements - a fear exacerbated by the recently discovered Spectre security flaw. And so from mid-February Google will block any advertisements that don't meet a new standard set by The Coalition for Better Ads. As it happens, the most powerful member of The Coalition for Better Ads is Google itself. And publishers will also be required to pay the Coalition in order to be certified as compliant.
Removing auto-playing video, intrusive fullscreen ads, and popups from the web may seem a noble thing to do. But bear in mind that more than
half the online advertising dollars in the world went to Google and Facebook last year. Now, under the guise of improving users' web experience Google is deploying brazen tactics that will almost certainly hurt its competitors. Businesses will now have the option of either advertising through Google's own ad business or risk not reaching the 45% of Americans who use Chrome as their browser.
Google now owns the most popular operating system in the world, the most popular browser in that operating system, the most popular search engine in that browser, and the world's biggest advertising business. This isn't vertical integration, it's vertical fusion. And the fallout for everyone else is radioactive.